I. Scriptural Christianity

Preliminary considerations

Does Christianity bear direct or indirect responsibility for the Holocaust? Why did so many Christians support Hitler? Why were the churches so silent? Why did so few Christians risk their lives to help their fellow-man? What about religious-sounding statements by Hitler and his henchmen referring to God, Providence, or whatever? What about centuries of demonization of the Jews? Did Christianity lay the foundations for the Holocaust by presenting the Jews as enemies of Christ, alien, "other," less than human?

Apart from these questions, what about the Holocaust in and of itself? What does it say about God, and about man? If we want to understand the relationship of Christianity to the Holocaust, we also need to understand the Holocaust itself. God's holiness and righteousness, sin and evil, God's regulation of human affairs - all of these and more must be taken into account. Having done so, we can see that Auschwitz does not mean the death of theology; that the cruelty of modern man in his rejection of God in no way invalidates biblical truth - on the contrary, it confirms it.

To deal with these questions we will have to consider what Christianity is, according to the bible's description of it. It will also be necessary to consider the bible's teachings on deep spiritual mysteries. It is in the light of these biblical teachings that we can find a deeper understanding of the crimes of the Nazis, and the relationship of those crimes to the teachings of Christ and to Christianity. I won't try to prove the truth of these basic beliefs, but will only present them.

The existence of God

The basic starting point is the existence of God. He created the world and sustains it today, and controls all things, so that nothing happens without his knowledge and consent. This great and invisible God is so far beyond our corrupt and sinful minds as to be beyond the reach of human reason unaided. Therefore, God communicates with us in various ways suitable to our miserable and sinful state. Apart from the manifold splendors of his creation, which plainly declare to all with eyes to see that God exists, and that he is surpassingly great, there are three ways that God speaks to us: through the bible; through circumstances; and through the direct operation of his Spirit in the hearts of those who have been granted the unmerited gift of saving faith in his Son Jesus Christ.

This God is radically different from the "World Spirit" or vague and ill-defined cosmic force of German romantic idealistic philosophy. These inventions of the human brain which contributed so significantly to the rise of the Volkish movement, the new paganism that reached its fruition in Naziism, were often expressed in religious or quasi-religious terms. There are many references to "God" in 19th-century German philosophy and liberal theology that had nothing whatever to do with God come in the flesh in the person of Jesus Christ. Some references to God, as we shall see, referred merely to the cosmos, which was considered to be an organism animated by some sort of life force that was at times called "divine."

Some think that any reference to "God," "Providence," "the Almighty," or whatever is a reflection of Christianity. This has caused a great deal of confusion. Hitler himself used god-words on occasion, but their connotations were entirely different from those of biblical Christianity, as will be demonstrated.

God's communication with man: the bible

The bible, the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments, was written by men, but by men so inspired by God, and so moved by his Holy Spirit, as to give us a precise, infallible, and inerrant record of all things God has determined it necessary for us to know. All of my attempts to explain the origins and implications of the holocaust should be based on my understanding of this precious and marvellous book from God, and to the extent that I deviate from its divine message, to that extent my ideas are false.

As I only want to state my beliefs, I will not go into a long digression about how I came to hold them. It would take too long to describe how by God's mercy I was delivered from the darkness of unbelief. I will also not spend too much time trying to refute the views of others who find my beliefs contrary to reason and logic. I will say in passing, though, that I consider secular science to be a paltry and inferior form of knowledge that can tell a man how his digestive system works, but cannot tell him what is right or wrong, or what awaits him after death. I give no credence to the myth of Darwinism, which I consider to be a secular fairy story devoid of substance, a pseudo-scientific expression of Victorian optimism and faith in progress - but others such as Philip Johnson in his book Darwin on Trial have exposed the fallacies of Darwinism more than sufficiently.

Needless to say, none of the Nazis ever asserted that the bible was the divinely inspired and infallible word of God. Eichmann in the published record of his interrogation (Eichmann Interrogated) expressed contempt for the bible with its stories of "cattle dealers" (as I recall from memory, having been unable to obtain a copy of the book). He also explained why the Nazis wrote Gottglaubig, "believer-in-God" on personnel forms to indicate religious affiliation. After Hitler had harped so much about "godless communism" they had to write something other than "atheist," and so used Gottglaubig to indicate the sort of vague pseudo-philosophical religiosity that will be examined in depth in part three of this essay. There can be no real Christianity without a belief in the bible as the divinely inspired and infallible word of God. Without a sure word of prophecy, Christianity inevitably degenerates into god-words that are void of substance and power.

Basic bible teachings: 1. Adam, Eve, and original sin

Fundamental to biblical Christianity is the creation account in Genesis. That this is literal historical fact is indispensable - without the historicity of Genesis and its account of the entry of sin into the world, all of scripture is nullified. As to whether or not the six days of creation refer to literal twenty four hour days, or six distinct stages of indeterminate length, that is not clear to me. The bible does on occasion use the word "day" to refer to something other than a twenty-four hour period (as in Genesis 2:4). If by the way God were to have created the world with the appearance of age, so that it would appear to be old when in fact it was not, that would make a mockery of all of the scientific claims about the age of the earth. But would this make God a liar? He tells us clearly in his word that he made the earth; the heavens and the earth themselves proclaim loudly that God has made them. Concealing the origins of the earth behind a veil of mystery so that people would be unable to find God by logic and reason; so that they would not be forced to believe in him by the obvious fact of a recent earth - this is not inconsistent with his glory. Thus the fossils would not be a deception or a joke of God, but a veil cast over the origins of the earth, to give it the appearance of age, the appearance of a gradual origin, so that those who were appointed not to believe might wander astray in the folly of their pseudo-scientific vanity.

I believe that the first man and the first woman, Adam and Eve, were created by God in a state of perfection and lived in the Garden of Eden. Being without sin, they could see God and communicate with him directly - but, as their perfection also included within it the possibility of disobeying God if they chose (without which their perfection would have been compulsory), they were liable to the tempter, who successfully persuaded them to disobey God's commandment.

As a result of their disobedience - and this is essential to an understanding not merely of the Holocaust, but of all sin in the world - they were expelled from the garden. Moreover, they were made subject to the ills of a now defective world, thrown out of its proper order by their disobedience and the entry of sin. More importantly, the divine life of God in their souls was extinguished. They still had a mortal existence, but their innocence, purity, clarity, holiness, and wisdom, and direct communication with God were quenched and replaced by sin. While they lived physically, ate, slept, talked, and worked, they were "dead in trespasses and sins," as it says in Ephesians.

Where once holiness and peace reigned, there was now the dark and troubled quagmire of the human soul as we know it today - the home, or the potential home, of the folly, vice, and sin that have so darkly stained the unfortunate history of the human race (yet, a history in which the mercy and love of God are also powerfully evident, for "where sin did abound, grace did much more abound"). Pride, cruelty, hatred, murder, greed, lies, ignorance, unbelief, malice, cowardice, passivity in the face of evil - all of the ingredients of the Holocaust, and all of the evils in the world, originate here.

Now we have the fundamental biblical truth of original sin - for if Adam and Eve were stained and flawed, it was impossible that their children should be perfect, or their children's children - and without the knowledge of the innate corruption of the human heart, all attempts to understand the Holocaust and all other forms of evil are doomed to failure from the outset. This original sin is the rock submerged beneath the surface on which all dreams of reform and political or secular redemption are fatally wrecked - without exception. Since the Holocaust is one manifestation of evil, it would seem logical that in attempts to explain the Holocaust evil itself would be the focus of discussion, but that is often not the case.

As to those who reject the truth of original sin, and the truths of the creation account as contained in Genesis, what is their alternative? And what evidence do they have for whatever conjectural scenarios they have so creatively devised? Can they explain the paradox of man, with his potential for goodness and his potential for evil? The divine creation and subsequent fall of man account for both - but this is a matter of faith, not of mere logic and argumentation. It is not contrary to logic, but it infinitely transcends the very limited scope of human "logic", which is often not logic at all but only a disguised manifestation of will and personal preference cleverly dressed up as argument.

2. Biblical truths concealed from the natural mind

There are some other basic biblical truths that are relevant to this discussion. One of them is, that because of our sinful nature, because our minds are blinded by sin, and guilt, and fear of the God whom we should love, the truths of the bible are concealed from the natural mind. They seem foolish to the natural mind, and cannot be understood unless God specifically reveals them. As the Holy Spirit of God speaking through Paul in his letter to the Corinthians says, "The natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness to him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." This natural state of fallen humanity is contrasted with the regenerated mind of the true (as opposed to the false) Christian. Sincere followers of God know essential biblical truths "For God has revealed them to us by his Spirit," for "We have not received the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God."

That the Nazis were blind to the truths of scripture is evident to anyone who has read the Sermon on the Mount or Paul's letters to the Corinthians with any degree of understanding. Biblical teachings that seem to lend themselves to anti-Semitism will be discussed in the section entitled "Answering some objections."

3. The day of judgement

Another biblical truth that pertains to this discussion is the day of judgement. The bible teaches that the soul lives after death, and that we will come before God to give an account for all of the things done in this life. We will give an account not only for our actions, but also for our words, and for the secrets of our hearts. On this day, those that have lived lives that are acceptable to God will be received into paradise, while those who have lived lives that are unacceptable will be sent to a place of eternal punishment. As Jesus said, "The hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation."

This is one aspect of human existence that is missed by those who find it impossible to reconcile the crimes of the Nazis with the existence of a just God. They do not understand that all of the perpetrators of the Holocaust, from Hitler down to the lowest camp guard or administrative clerk, will stand before God and give an account for all they have done, and will receive adequate punishment - unless their sins have been washed away by the blood of Christ shed on the cross. In the end, God's justice will be fully manifested and fully vindicated.

4. Spiritual powers of evil

Another aspect of biblical teaching that needs to be considered is the existence of spiritual powers of evil. Concerning the mystery of iniquity, Christians are admonished not to be wise concerning evil, but to be wise concerning good. We do not need to peer into the mysteries of the occult and search out the deep things of Satan. Our first concern must be God and Christ, our final goal - they will alert us, if we walk in the Spirit, to such knowledge of evil as is necessary for us. It does us no good, it even does us harm, to be too preoccupied with the dark side, but we recognize its existence, and if we are to understand the Holocaust we must be aware that there is a very real spiritual wickedness in high places. The "prince of the power of the air" and his invisible minions manipulate the human children of disobedience. God is holiness, light, and truth, but the unseen rulers of the darkness of this world are inspirers and instigators of evil - of lies, hatred, cruelty, murder, immorality, of the whole range of human sins. It is our own sin and ignorance that render us liable to their machinations, and those who do not serve God are being used by higher powers toward ungodly ends. These powers of evil, and the men who serve them, are nonetheless compelled to operate within the limits set by the God whom they refuse to acknowledge, and God tolerates this evil for a time, prior to its final destruction.

Of course, those who do not accept the existence of God cannot be expected to accept the existence of a lower order of rebellious spirits that work contrary to God - but, as was said earlier, it is not my intention to argue in depth, or seek for "proofs," or appeal to the feeble vagaries of logic (logic often being nothing but the rationalization of personal preference). I only want to state what I believe so as to make my presuppositions known from the outset, and to provide the necessary framework for further comments on the Holocaust - but, a few brief comments for sceptics might be in order here.

What drives a man to kidnap a child, torture it, and kill it? What motivates the positive delight in cruelty and evil that too often manifests itself? What power elevated Hitler from low levels of poverty and obscurity to the loftiest pinnacle of power, contrary to all human expectation? Was it blind chance? Human will alone? Impersonal fate? Hitler himself seems to have believed, like many others, in an uncertain mixture of human will and fate or providence. At any rate, there is certainly no scientific evidence to disprove the existence of spiritual powers of evil, and rejection of this concept is itself a statement of faith, faith without evidence. But, whatever people may say, the bible reveals the existence of powers of evil that manipulate our sinful inclinations and use them for unholy ends.

Failure to take these powers into account renders all attempts to understand the Holocaust on a deeper level null and void. The unimaginable cruelties not only of the Holocaust but of other periods of history as well are not impossible for the Christian world view to account for. Sincere Christians know the reality of sin, and of the spiritual powers of evil that play upon our sin and manipulate it with mystical subtlety and skill.

5. God's control over human affairs

Essential to a Christian understanding of the Holocaust is the truth that God is God not only in theory, but also in fact. He does not sit remote on a distant throne, so high and lifted up that the affairs of this earth are beneath his notice or beyond his reach. He is intimately involved, directly or indirectly, with the affairs of this life, down to the smallest details; and he is not merely aware - he is active, though many Christians find it difficult or impossible to recognize this.

God's great and infinite and unsearchable power is not merely a theological abstraction, best suited for toying with in a Sunday school discussion or a seminary classroom. It is not a limited power that does nice things only, operating in a way that is confined to what is acceptable and pleasing to us, not interfering with the sovereignty of human will and human reason, as if man is at the center of the stage and God is offstage waiting, inactive or feebly active until his final return when at last he will finally do something. God's power is not merely inconceivably vast, reaching even to the farthest reaches of space, so that God knows the number of all of the stars that he has created, and calls them all by name, down to the most insignificant stellar specks of the remotest and as yet undiscovered galaxies.

No, his power also extends to the details of earth. God sends the clouds, and prepares rain for the earth, as the psalmist wrote - and he did not just do that in bible times, as if he sustained the world only in the old days when people wore robes and rode donkeys and camels, but now the earth sustains itself. Today, in the 21st century, God makes the grass grow and feeds the wild animals and the birds. He sends the snow and the ice, and moves and guides the earth in its seasonal revolutions around the sun. Jesus teaches that not only does God feed the birds, but also that not even one bird falls to the ground without God's knowledge. He makes the sun shine, and turns the night into day into night, through thousands of years and unknown centuries past, and through how many more years yet to come, until the world and the created universe are dissolved with fire to be succeeded by a new heaven and a new earth.

All of this and more than can be expressed pertain to the physical creation - and shall we imagine that God created and controls this vast and spectacular theater in which the drama of human existence is played out, and then leaves the plot to us? Who believes that human will is paramount and at the center, that God may not interfere with our sovereignty? Let such a person confess that he does not believe in the bible's teachings. How can such a person have anything other than an abstract and theoretical faith that has little or nothing to do with the real world? Sadly, that is the position of many Christians today.

It is not necessary to try and determine the exact extent of God's control. We are not talking about such trivia as what I eat for breakfast, or what color tie I wear. Even a man who is chained hand and foot to a wall is free to blink his eyes or twitch his nose. Nor are we talking about the destiny of the soul after death, whether or not people are predestined to heaven or hell. That lies outside the scope of this discussion. We can say - we must say, if we believe in the bible - that God exercises control over the major events of the world, even if we do not know how God's plan and individual responsibility meet or how they might interact.

Major events of world history and economics and culture are completely outside of our individual control - and what shapes these things? Blind chance? Impersonal fate? That is to say that God is nonexistent, or remote, or ineffectual, or indifferent. But if God does determine these major events things, does it follow that we are now nothings, only lifeless puppets?

External divine control over major events does not mean that we are puppets or chips of wood. If the parents tell a ten year old child that he must stop watching TV because he has to go to school tomorrow and it is time for him to go to bed, the fact that a higher, superior will is imposed on him from above does not mean that the child's personality has been negated or destroyed, that he has ceased to be a rational and conscious being. On the contrary, far from negating the child's personality, the intervention of a higher authority and a more informed will (if the parents are wise and loving) maximizes the child's personality, and helps it to grow properly.

Is it reasonable to insist that we must be completely autonomous, free from submission to any higher power, or we are no longer human? It is not reasonable, and depends on a purely arbitrary and exceedingly simple-minded understanding of the concept "human". This philosophy (expressed in enticing words of deceitful human wisdom) is hatched in the finite and cloudy brains of those who recognize nothing higher than their own will, and hence confuse their personal preferences with truth. They imagine that they, and not God, are at the center of the moral universe, and dream that truth revolves around their personal preferences. They flatter themselves that they are much wiser than the ancients because they know that the earth revolves around the sun, and often boast of their knowledge in the scientific realm, when they are much less knowledgeable than the ancients in the spiritual realm, and commit the much greater error of thinking that man alone is now the center of the moral and philosophical universe, and that all truth must be subject to man's judgement. Removing earth from the center physically, they have placed it at the center morally, philosophically, and theologically - a blind and tragic error that leads them into ever greater darkness. As Jesus said, "If therefore the light that is in you be darkness, how great is that darkness!"

Returning to the subject of the Holocaust, it is essential to recognize some degree of divine control over these events. This is not to say that God does evil - no evil can even tempt him or approach him - but there is evil in the world, malevolent spiritual powers that are openly hostile to everything from God that makes life good and worthwhile, and these spiritual powers (and the human agents that intentionally or unintentionally serve them) are not sovereign, free to act without God's knowledge or against God's will. These forces of evil - whether spiritual wickedness in high places, Satan and the devils, the unseen and secret rulers of the darkness of this world; or earthly, those human beings who in their rejection of God, or who in their false conceptions of God, serve the purposes of the hidden spiritual powers - these forces are limited, and restrained by God. He permits them to exist, for a time, and in some way regulates them and sets boundaries for them, until in the end they are finally destroyed.

More specifically, Hitler, the physical and visible servant of invisible spiritual powers of evil, was allowed by God to arise and prevail for a time, but he was not allowed to conquer the world, nor was he allowed to nullify God's covenant with Abraham by destroying all of the Jews. But, is there any biblical basis for these assertions? In the book of Daniel we read that God "changes the times and the seasons: he removes kings, and sets up kings." We also read in this same book of divine wisdom that "the most High rules in the kingdom of men, and gives it to whomsoever he will, and sets up over it the basest of men."

In response to this, some who claim to believe in the bible will say, or will think it but will be reluctant to say, that "This may have been true in bible times, but it doesn't apply today - this is the real world we are talking about here." This is one of the more common of many evils in the church today - people believe in the bible, and proclaim their belief, as long as the bible says something agreeable or readily comprehensible to them. When, however, the bible says something that they find distasteful, or too hard to understand, there are a number of standard evasive tactics, one of which is to say, or assume without saying it openly, that "That was true for bible times but not for today."

Now, it is true that God manifested himself in unique ways in bible times. He does not now show himself as a pillar of fire as he did in the Exodus. He does not do many things now as he did in the unique circumstances surrounding the origins of Judaism and Christianity - but that is readily apparent. Shall we go on to conclude that he governed the world then, but does not do so today? That victory or defeat in war, or changes of government, were controlled by God in bible times but are totally outside of his providence now? Or that he was concerned with the Jews only, and that in bible times, but now the rest of the world is out of his control? If so, then important events in the world are determined by blind and impersonal chance, or by malevolent powers of evil, or by human will alone. But then, where is God? Indifferent? Impotent? Absent? How can we pray to God for the rulers and the authorities (as the bible says that we should) if God is not in any way involved with them?

God is not indifferent, or absent, or impotent. He reigns and governs, not in theory only but also in fact, and this is confirmed in the New Testament, where the Holy Spirit of God, speaking through Paul in his letter to the Romans, says:

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.    Whosoever therefore resists the power, resists the ordinance of  God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.    For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Will you then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and you shall have praise of the same:    For he is the minister of God to you for good. But if you do that which is evil, be afraid; for he bears not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that does evil.    Wherefore you must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

This passage leads to difficult questions, the chief of them being, "Does this make God responsible for evil? Did he ordain Hitler and Stalin? Were they ordained of God?" Looking at this question - and Paul was writing at a time when the government was a rapacious and blatantly imperialist power that actively persecuted Christians - we can be sure that God does not do wrong or evil. He is the father of lights, in whom there is no imperfection. Evil cannot tempt or approach him, but evil does exist in the world, as well as in the unseen spiritual realms, and in some way God controls it, and regulates it, without being touched by it himself. And, the final day will come when the kingdom of God is revealed and evil is finally defeated.

If, though, it says in Romans that rulers "are not a terror to good works, but to evil"; that the ruler is the minister of God for good; that he is the minister of God to execute wrath on evildoers; that we should be subject to the authorities - does this apply to Hitler? That seems impossible - but first, it is necessary to note that Paul is not writing to the world at large. He is not writing here to ordinary people, who are subject to only common emotions. He is writing here, as it says in the opening sentences of the letter, to those that are beloved of God, called to be saints.

Those who have experienced the power of God unto salvation; who know that the world lies in wickedness, but they have been chosen and called of God; who know that to die is gain; who know that the hairs of their heads are numbered by God, and have faith that their times are in God's hands, and believe they will not die until it is God's time for them to depart to a better world; these with a divine strength given by God do not fear those that can only destroy the body, but after that can't do anything else. They know what the bible means when it says "Fear none of those things which you will suffer," and can endure torture, "not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection," as it says in Hebrews.

More than that, they not only do not fear death and suffering. They can (in the strength of God's Holy Spirit, not in the strength of the flesh), rejoice if they are made partakers of Christ's sufferings, and glorify God when they suffer for his sake, as God speaking through Peter said: "if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf." He also says:

Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you.       But rejoice, inasmuch as you are partakers of Christ's sufferings; that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy.

To such Paul is writing, and while those who are walking in the light of Christ experience the full range of normal human emotions, they are not subject to those emotions, but transcend them and conquer them with a peace that the world cannot give or take away. Jesus even said that those who are persecuted for his sake are blessed and supremely happy, though this is folly and stupidity to the world. They see Herod in his glory, sitting in wealth and ease, and imagine that he is better off than John the Baptist in a dungeon, about to be beheaded, but they judge by outward appearances only.

With this in mind we can see more readily that Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, or Castro, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, or any of the other institutionalized powers of evil that systematically inflict horrible cruelties, are "not a terror to good works." They are the ministers of God to execute wrath on the world by means of the powers God specifically allows them to receive from Satan. In some way that we do not know, they all contribute to the culmination of world history when God will be glorified, and his full justice will be seen. The evildoers will receive the full measure for what they have done - wrath, tribulation, and anguish - while the righteous will receive glory and honor and immortality, eternal life.

More specifically, about God's providence including even the reign of Hitler, could not God have caused Hitler to be killed in World War I? Hitler was in the thick of some of the most destructive battles in the history of the world, yet he survived while people all around him were slaughtered. Could not God have caused Hitler to drop dead of a heart attack at any time after the war? The fact is, that God could easily have removed Hitler at any time but decided not to do so (and those who deny him this power do not even believe in God at all). Was it because God was helpless, powerless to intervene, or because God was subject to human free will and unable to override it, that Hitler was allowed to survive, and flourish, and magnify himself to such an astonishing height of evil? Or was it because Hitler was in some way part of the grand scheme of things? Hitler was not allowed to win, but he was allowed to act for a time, and the limits were precisely set, to the day and to the hour.

The bible teaches that God ordains the authorities. Those who believe that this was true only in bible times, but not today, can try to warm their shrivelled souls with a theoretical faith that has little or nothing to do with the real world, and is in fact either no faith at all, or a lame and crippled faith. Hebrews teaches that God sustains "all things by the word of his power." Does he sustain them without knowing, without seeing, without a plan or a purpose? Some who call themselves Christians may believe so - I do not. I should repeat, however, that if God wants to send his wrath on a corrupt and decadent Europe, he does not do evil himself. All he needs to do is to remove his restraining hand and allow Satan to work. Then, in World Wars I and II, we see the marvellous handiwork of the devil himself, and a Europe given over by the Lord to chastisement became a playground for the Prince of Darkness - and Hitler, Lenin, and Stalin were among his chief agents.

I do not offer "proofs" - I state my beliefs. I think they are in agreement with scripture. For those who reject scripture altogether, one set of questions is in order. For those who claim to accept scripture, but do not believe that these and other great events of history are controlled in the end by God, I can only wonder what sort of a God it is that they believe in. The feeble, pathetic, useless, and ineffectual God of too many modern "Christians"?  A God who brings people to heaven, and does a few nice things like help someone find a job or give a healthy baby, and not much else? This is not the God of scripture, who sends war and peace; who sends plague and famine; who not only builds up but also tears down; who not only gives life but also takes it.

There is also the question of cooperation with the authorities: if the authorities are ordained by God, should we not accept them and follow them passively? Briefly, no. Christians are called to be salt and light in the world. This includes standing for truth, and speaking for the truth - though there are times when we are commanded to be silent, and not cast our pearls before the swine, as Christ said, "lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." But, when Satan is allowed by God to pervert the forces of government to his own ends, Christians who walk in  the light of Christ and love the truth will soon find themselves in conflict with the powers of darkness. We can cooperate with the authorities, up to a point - but when we are commanded to deny biblical truth, then we must obey God rather than men.

More to the point, where were the German Christians in the 1920's and 1930's, testifying that the Germans were not the master race; that Hitler was not the messiah of Germany; that the proper response to the injustices of the Versailles Treaty was not hatred and revenge, but acceptance; that the Jews were not really so bad? Which Christians were saying that the Versailles Treaty was bad, but that hatred and revenge would only make matters worse? Who was saying that what was important was not lost territory, but eternal life, and preparing for the judgement? Where were the Christian voices speaking truth? They were conspicuously absent, and secular histories of the Weimar Republic that I have seen have nothing to say about the Christians in this regard. If authentic biblical Christianity had had a more powerful voice in Germany - but it did not. More will be said about this later, God willing, but Christians are supposed to speak out against evil and lies, not blindly follow them. And, when they do speak out, in the Spirit and not in the flesh, the world responds with hatred and malice. Then, Christians have the honor of suffering for Christ. Christ said, "The world cannot hate you; but me it hates, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil." It is a ministry of the Holy Spirit, to convict of sin - and does it not say, that as Christ was sent, we also have been sent?

There was no powerful and compelling national Christian voice denouncing the false teachings of Hitler. This relates to a common misconception about Luther. It is assumed that because he correctly taught the biblical doctrine of obedience to the authorities, that he was therefore to blame for German docility and obedience four hundred years later - but Luther, with his refusal to be intimidated by the cruelty of the Roman Church, with his manifest and undeniable courage, would have been the last to grovel in cowardly silence when biblical truth was at stake. Indeed, to say that the frenzied mobs shrieking for Hitler, or the cowardly Christians keeping silent out of fear, and even accommodating their shallow Christianity to meet the demands of the times - to say that these have anything to do with Luther reveal a profound misapprehension as to the man and his work.

Yet another point needs to be discussed on the subject of God's control over the rulers of the world. Would it have been right for a Christian to assassinate Hitler? More than one person has said that it would have been right - but is this in fact the case? If God ordains rulers, or even if God only allows Satan to install wicked rulers for wrath - this still being in some way part of God's will - are we wise enough to take the fate of nations into our own hands and decide according to our personal wisdom when ordained rulers should be removed? Of course, we are speaking here of private individual decisions. Romans says that those who resist the divinely ordained powers will receive damnation. What if by taking matters into our own hands and acting according to our own wisdom we resist the will of God and in the end only make matters worse?

How, one might ask, could anything be worse than Hitler? That question is not hard to answer. If some Christian, acting on his own and not as the legitimate agent of another divinely established government (such as that of America or England or Russia), had decided to take it upon himself in his own wisdom to assassinate Hitler, and had succeeded in doing so - say, in 1941 or 1942, or 1944 - this could easily have left power in the hands of Goebbels and/or Himmler. If these men or others, fully committed to the Nazi ideology but lacking Hitler's unshakeable faith in his infallible military genius, had allowed the military commanders to make more intelligent decisions in the field, the war would have been significantly prolonged. The war could then have ended not in the spring of 1945, but in the fall of 1945, or even in the spring of 1946, or later - and if all the while the racial war against the Jews had been continued, how many more people would have died?

In this way a carnal Christian, taking the law into his own hands, taking upon himself the governance of the nations, would have caused more deaths, not fewer; more suffering, not less. No, it is not the duty of Christians to go around assassinating people, fighting evil with evil - as if Peter and Paul had advocated the assassination of Nero, who was also a cruel tyrant. No, the duty of the Christian is to submit himself to God. As to whether or not a Christian is allowed to serve in the army or on a police force, and be used of God to keep the peace as an agent of government, people are entitled to their own views. My own understanding is that a Christian could serve in that way. Without police forces and armies the world would be in chaos, and life would be impossible, which is why God has given governments the power of the sword. Christians in legitimate positions of authority are allowed to use a certain amount of force, Christ's Sermon on the Mount being a guide for individuals, not a political manifesto that cancels or contradicts what the same Spirit of God says about governmental authority in Romans. But, if sincere Christians believe that the peace keeping duties of government are for unbelievers and not for believers, they have some valid reasons too.

6. God's anger

One last basic bible teaching remains to be considered. That is the concept of God's anger. There are a number of ways of dealing with this topic. One is to ignore it altogether, the way many Christians do. A second tactic is to mention it briefly, and then pass quickly on to another subject. A third approach is to dwell excessively on God's anger, and even present it in an angry way, as if we do not have peace with God; as if we do not know that justice will be done, and all will be made right in the end. Dwelling excessively on God's anger, we can also present it with relish, as if we look forward to the punishment of the wicked, being ignorant of, or insufficiently mindful of, God's mercy and our own sinfulness.

A fourth approach is to discuss God's anger as a necessary part of truth. We must have faith in God as he reveals himself in scripture, and that includes not only mercy and love, but also anger and judgement. These last two are not contrary to his holiness and his perfection (perfection being perhaps merely one aspect of holiness) - they are in fact an inseparable part of his holiness, however disagreeable they might be to those whose superficiality, or guilty consciences, make them desire to avoid the subject altogether. At any rate, since God's wrath is essential to an understanding of the Second World War, and the Holocaust, it needs to be discussed.

In all of the rivers of ink and mountains of paper that have been consumed in analyzing the origins of the two World Wars, has anyone ever had the temerity to suggest that these two catastrophes were the direct result of God's wrath? Has anyone ever considered that God himself was weary of the conceited European pseudo-intellectuals with their useless ballets, and frivolous operas, and bombastic symphonies, and boasts of progress, tedious novels, and fake poetry, not to mention pride in carnal science, rejection of God, and general immorality? What if God himself jerked the rug out from under their feet and brought their glittering and Christless vanity down into the bloodstained morass of the western front? What if God delivered Europe over to Satan to a definite degree, and for a fixed period of chastisement? That would be a fitting conclusion to Europe's vainglorious pride - and it is significant that the one thing the Europeans were the most proud of, their science, became in World War I an instrument not of progress but of mass slaughter. As the bible says, pride comes before a fall, and a haughty spirit before destruction.

For those who do not believe in God at all, it is a question of presuppositions - does God exist or not? As for those who claim to believe in God, and who also claim to believe in the bible, but who do not like a God who punishes, what do they make of the God of Ezekiel, who repeatedly states that he will send famine, he will send pestilence, he will send war, he will destroy the high places of the wicked? This is a God that is almost entirely absent from the modern church. The God of the bible has been replaced with a God of our imaginations, fashioned according to our image - a benign and ineffectual God who does not reign and who does not judge. This is one reason - not the only reason, but one of many - why modern American Christianity is so spineless, and goes stumbling blindly from defeat to defeat.

But if God is good, how can he send war? Isn't it his will for everyone to live in peace? In heaven, everyone will live in peace, but on earth, the vast majority of people have no time for God, and are in fact in bondage to the powers of darkness. Admittedly, some of these people are outwardly beneficent, though subject to evil thoughts and feelings - as many decent people were swept away by a passion for war in 1914 and hailed the outbreak of hostilities in great enthusiastic crowds - great enthusiastic crowds of fools. No one who was walking in the light of Christ would celebrate the outbreak of war with excitement and rapture. That is for empty people who are bored with a dull and meaningless existence.

About the godless people of this world, some of them are outwardly decent, but others are openly evil. They delight in crime and war, and have a particular enthusiasm for violence. They do not view war as a necessary but regrettable thing, to be fought only when necessary. They view it as a positive good, and reject all attempts at peaceful solutions (unless it is to their advantage to play diplomatic games for a while in order to deceive shallow and gullible diplomats, intellectuals, and journalists).

At any rate, the earth is dark and full of wickedness. God exercises extraordinary patience with us, divine patience, but when in his wisdom and justice he judges that the time is right for punishment, he has the right to act as he sees fit. If this means allowing Satan a greater measure of freedom to operate, as is seen in the book of Job, God can do that - and Satan, and all of the unseen spiritual powers of evil, can do nothing without God's knowledge and permission. For this reason, evil that was done by Satan was said twice by Job to be from God, and the bible approves of both of his statements - and this doubling was for confirmation. If Satan does evil, and God could prevent it but does not, this is because it is God's will for it to occur. If God could easily have prevented 9/11 in any one of a number of ways, but chose not to do so, this is because he wanted it to occur.

People have forgotten that God is the Lord of life and death. Because he gives life, he also has the divine right to take it. Just as much as we have the right to turn off an electric light in our own home, God has the right to take anyone's life, anywhere, any time. And, if he does so out of mercy, delivering someone from this world and taking them to a better place, or if he does so in judgement, his actions are always perfect and just - not corrupt and fallible like human mercy and human anger usually are, but necessary and right.

This is why God can send famine, plague, and war as Ezekiel so plainly says. If he withdraws his restraining hand, and allows Satan to operate, or even if God himself directly intervenes to take life, as he did in the flood, or in the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, he can do that, because he is God.

"Pour out your wrath upon the heathen that have not known you, and upon the kingdoms that have not called upon your name," as it says in the Psalms - but wasn't that just for bible times? Many Christians think so - and, it is true that God did act in exceptional ways in the bible that we do not see today. But, if someone feels God does not act today, that he does not guide and protect and bless, or punish - do they even believe in God at all? Do the words of Zephaniah apply to them, the secret atheists and agnostics who say "The Lord will not do good, neither will he do evil"? He says they will be punished, who deny that God does good things, and who deny that God does things that seem bad or evil in the eyes of the world. In both cases they deny God's activity in the world and reduce him to a useless abstraction, a human construct that does not act and does not reign.

Some may argue that God was in the bible times dealing with the Jews in a special and unique way. Now, it is true, of course, that God did deal with Israel in a special and unique way in bible times - but it would be a great error to infer that because he dealt with the Jews in a certain way then, that therefore he now does not deal with the nations at all, that the events of world history are outside of his providence.

What sort of peculiar semi-atheism is this, that denies God his role as sovereign of the world? God pours out his blessing on the nations, but at times he sends wrath also. We have already looked at that teaching of the book of Daniel: "the most High rules in the kingdom of men, and gives it to whomsoever he will, and sets up over it the basest of men." This includes governments that are instruments of wrath. Isaiah wrote of the calamities that would come upon Israel at the hands of other nations as a direct result of God's anger at sin.

Concerning the visible effects of God's anger, Isaiah has much to say upon the subject. We cherish the wonderful verses in Isaiah about peace and forgiveness; what about God's hand stretched out in anger to fill the streets with corpses of the slain? What about the day of the Lord that comes "cruel both with wrath and fierce anger"? What about children slaughtered and wives ravished because God has sent a cruel enemy in his anger against the objects of his wrath? When God sweeps the land with the broom of destruction, and tramples down the people in his anger, what then? We know God cannot do evil but his anger and punishment are not evil, they are righteous and necessary - though they are not inflicted with pleasure and relish, since God does not delight in the death of a sinner.

This is why, while mourning over the destruction of Israel, Jeremiah does not ask of God "How could you do this?" He does not whine or complain, but recognizes the justice of God's actions and says "We have sinned."

There are verses that speak more directly to the question of God's control of evil. Here are some - God says in Isaiah: "I have created the smith that blows the coals in the fire, and that brings forth an instrument for his work; and I have created the waster to destroy." Speaking through the prophet Amos, God says: "Shall there be evil in the city, and the Lord hath not done it?"

How can all of this be? Do we worship a cruel and vengeful God? No, but we have to consider the different meanings of the word "evil." The Nazis in World War II would have said that the destruction of their cities and the defeat of Hitler were "evils," but the destruction of the wicked is not evil. God's punishment on people or on nations for their sins is never evil, but is always good - it is motivated not by corrupt human passion but by flawless divine judgement. For example, most Americans would agree that the events of 9/11 were evil, but if the Americans have for so long and so consistently been removing God from their schools, and their courts, and their universities, and their government institutions, and their newspapers and television stations, and their homes, it is not wrong of God to give them the freedom from his protection and blessing that they so desire, and deliver a couple of buildings in New York and part of a building in Washington over to Satan for destruction. Of course, some Christians would give God the right to destroy two cities by fire or even the world by a flood in bible times, but deny him the right to destroy two buildings today. This is because their faith is very weak, if it is not simply dead and useless.

Though God has the right to visit his destruction directly, as he did in the flood, or in the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, he also has the right to give Satan a certain authority. Thus, it is the devil and the forces of evil that kill and destroy, but they do not do it without God's knowledge and without his permission. This is why, as was said before, Satan killed and destroyed Job's family and possessions, but Job knew that this could not have been done without God. Therefore he said about the loss of his possessions and children, "the Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord." When he is afflicted with ill health, Job says "shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil?" - and immediately after each of these statements the bible says, "in all this Job sinned not, nor charged God foolishly," and "in all this Job did not sin with his lips." Job was not a supreme stoic, and later passages describe the depth of his grief, but he did not worship a candy-coated modern God that only did nice things; he worshipped the Lord of life and death who has the power to give and to take life when and as he wills, a supreme being to whom even the forces of evil are subject.

Thus, the verses about God doing evil are no problem if we remember that what common men ordinarily call evil may be only simple justice, or, as in the case of Job, not necessarily justice, but still part of a divine purpose that is concealed from us. We also need to remember that God may abandon nations or individuals to Satan's power for a specified time and to a specific degree. What is done is thus truly evil, yet still within the boundaries of God's sovereign control.

The prophet Jeremiah also has much to say about God's regulation of evil. Since this topic is essential to a biblical discussion of the Holocaust, we need to examine it carefully, remembering that God is not subject to our preferences. Looking into the words of Jeremiah, we find a God that is very far from the God of modern Christianity. We find many verses in which God speaking through Jeremiah says directly that he sends and causes what men ordinarily call evil. War, famine, plague, these came in Jeremiah's time directly from the anger of God, as is stated over and over again. As was said before, some may say that this pertains only to Old Testament times, and then to the kingdom of Israel, but let us first examine the picture of God given at that time, in his dealing with Israel, and then see if it applies to other times, including our own.

Here are some verses. When the pronoun "I" is used, it is God speaking.

So shall it be with all the men that set their faces to go into Egypt to sojourn there; they shall die by the sword, by the famine, and by the pestilence: and none of them shall remain or escape from the evil that I will bring upon them. For thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel; as my anger and my fury have been poured forth upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem; so shall my fury be poured forth upon you...    I will cause Elam to be dismayed before their enemies, and before them that seek their life: and I will bring evil upon them, even my fierce anger, says the Lord; and I will send the sword after them, till I have consumed them...

These are only a few of the many similar verses on this subject - a subject that the world hates, and that many Christians prefer to avoid.

What shall we say of these verses? First, we should stress that God is patient and forgiving, and he will receive anyone that comes to him. Thieves, liars, murderers (including abortion doctors and the women who submit to them and cruelly destroy the children whom they should love and cherish), drunkards, homosexuals, child molesters, prostitutes, atheists, or nice people who ignore God - he will receive anyone that comes to him repenting of their wickedness, and his forgiveness and love are marvellously immeasurable. But, for those who do not come, who will not come, there is judgement. Sometimes, that judgement is deferred until the next life, after death, when sinners who have seemingly prospered in this life but die without repentance will have to meet with a final reckoning. That will be eternal punishment in the lake of fire. Sometimes, that justice is administered by God in this life - but does God really punish in this life? Is the God of the Old Testament different from the God of the New? Hasn't the God of the Old Testament been replaced by a soft, gentle, doe-eyed Jesus with pretty long hair like a woman who likes to bless the little children and make us feel good about ourselves but doesn't do much else? Parenthetically, is this concept of Jesus related to the weakness of the church? More importantly, is God even active at all?

Concerning these questions, Christians believe that we do have a fuller and a more complete revelation in Christ. God revealed more to Moses that was unknown to Abraham, and in Christ we have truths revealed that Abraham and Moses did not know. There is a greater degree of mercy - for those who come to God through Christ. But for those who are outside of Christ, the Old Testament God is still on the throne. This is a God before whom the earth should tremble. If there is a drought, does God not have the power to send rain? If he does not, away with such a useless God. If there is a plague, does he not have the power to reveal a cure? But, those who have the eyes of faith given as a gift by God know that he is active in the world - for those who do not, an ocean of books would not suffice.

It is ridiculous to expect the unbelievers to fear and reverence God and believe what the bible says about him, when even the Christians do not do so. If even the Christians do not believe in the God of the bible, why should anyone else?

Much more could be said about this, but I would like to conclude with a Psalm. Some may imagine that this psalm is only religious words, but it is far more real and more relevant than today's newspaper - or should I say than today's collection of gossip, trivia, distortions, perversions, folly, and on occasion outright lies? These eternal truths shed more light on what is happening in the world today than is immediately apparent to the superficial observer.

O LORD God, to whom vengeance belongs; O God, to whom vengeance belongs, shew yourself.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Lift up yourself, you judge of the earth: render a reward to the proud.    LORD, how long shall the wicked, how long shall the wicked triumph?    How long shall they utter and speak hard things? and all the workers of iniquity boast themselves?    They break in pieces your people, O LORD, and afflict your heritage.    They slay the widow and the stranger, and murder the fatherless.    Yet they say, The LORD shall not see, neither shall the God of Jacob regard it.     Understand, you brutish among the people: and you fools, when will you be wise?                                                                                  He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? he that formed the eye, shall he not see?     He that chastises the heathen, shall not he correct? he that teaches man knowledge, shall not he know?     The LORD knows the thoughts of man, that they are vanity.     Blessed is the man whom you chasten, O LORD, and teach him out of your law;                                                  That you may give him rest from the days of adversity, until the pit be dug for the wicked.     For the LORD will not cast off his people, neither will he forsake his inheritance.     But judgment shall return unto righteousness: and all the upright in heart shall follow it.     Who will rise up for me against the evildoers? or who will stand up for me against the workers of iniquity?     Unless the LORD had been my help, my soul had almost dwelt in silence.     When I said, My foot slips; your mercy, O LORD, held me up.     In the multitude of my thoughts within me your comforts delight my soul.     Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with you, which frames mischief by a law?     They gather themselves together against the soul of the righteous, and condemn the innocent blood.     But the LORD is my defence; and my God is the rock of my refuge.     And he shall bring upon them their own iniquity, and shall cut them off in their own wickedness; yes, the LORD our God shall cut them off.

These verses comment more profoundly on modern European history and on the present state of the world than thousands of books and articles by sociologists, experts, scholars, and historians, trying in vain to explain the world without God. Let us look at a little modern history in the light of this psalm. In the hideous destruction of the First World War, did not God render a reward to the proud? The Europeans were glorying in their splendid civilization before the war, but not after, and one of their greatest triumphs, science, was their ruin. Their scientific progress led to greater devastation.  And did not the Nazis receive God's reward for their pride? And will not America, "the world's only superpower," receive the same reward, if we continue to walk in pride away from God as we are now doing?

The wicked triumph, as the psalm also says, and they speak hard things; the workers of iniquity boast, with their godless philosophies and theologies, and their abortions, and their corrupt entertainments, trashy movies, idiotic TV shows, worthless pop songs, and sexual perversions. They "murder the fatherless" and boast of it as "choice" - the Nazis too thought their killing was virtuous and right. Jews and unborn babies are not really human beings anyway, so it's alright to kill them - and they imagine that God does not see, and will do nothing.

Are they not, as the psalmist said, "brutish" and "fools," who have no regard for God and his laws, and imagine that they are a law unto themselves, free to confuse their corrupt hallucinations and delusions with truth because they have no external standard? The thoughts of the Nazis or of the secular glorifiers of science and progress, of all who have no need for God, were and are vanity, and pits were and even now are being dug for them. Did not the proud leaders of Europe and their lemminglike masses fall into the pit of destruction prepared for them in WWI? Did not the Nazis fall into the pit of destruction prepared for them? So also destruction awaits all who despise God, if not in this life then surely in the next. They "frame mischief by a law," establishing their sins and evils as the law of the land, institutionalizing their iniquity, and gather against the righteous, but "God shall bring upon them their own iniquity, and shall cut them off in their wickedness; yes, the Lord our God will cut them off." God does reign, and evil will prosper for a time, before it falls into the righteous and godly destruction that God has prepared for it.

God's communication with man: the Lord Jesus Christ

Although many books could be written on the unsearchable riches of Christ, the basic biblical teaching - and which, again, is foolishness to the natural mind, being only perceived and understood if God gives the gift of faith - is that Christ came to earth as God in the flesh. The third part of the Trinity, he existed prior to the creation of the world - since "All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made." The blessed Virgin was only the means that Christ chose to enter the world without a human father, so that he might walk among us as a man. Incidentally, after Christ's birth Mary had other children in a natural way, as is clearly shown in scripture when Christ's disbelieving countrymen ask "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us?"

That Mary should have later had children is no problem for the bible believing Christian, since children produced in marriage are as the bible says a blessing from God, and there is no spiritual reason to think that Joseph and Mary should not have been blessed by God with the joy of ordinary children. Christ's having been born without a human father is essential, however, since it is his divine origin that makes him an infallible oracle and guide, and a sufficient sacrifice for the sins of the world. Therefore, those who deny the virgin birth of Christ can not properly be called Christians, since they reject scripture and reduce Christ to the level of a mere man, however much they might like to disguise their unbelief behind clever and devious theological doubletalk carefully crafted to deceive the unwary.

As to the Trinity, it is absurd to imagine that the creative power behind the entire universe should be limited to the confines of our corrupt and dwarfish human intellects. We do not know how the eye transmits images to the mind that awaken feelings in the soul. We do not even fully understand ourselves -  how sadly deluded to demand that God himself must not be beyond us. To say that I do not understand the Trinity is no sign of intellectual inadequacy. For thousands of years no one knew how the sun worked, but its heat and light were real nonetheless. Now, a few nuclear physicists know how it works, but the vast majority of people, including myself, still do not know. Does this call the validity of the sun into question? What arrogance, to imagine that our tiny intellects are the sole measure of reality, and that what we cannot understand must not or cannot exist. The only word for this is blindness. It is a striking manifestation of the stupid metaphysical conceit which is so characteristic of the modern age.

We know that God is one, for the bible teaches this plainly. We also know that within this oneness there is a diversity, since the bible teaches this also, referring to the Father as God, and the Son as God, and the Spirit as God. And true Christians believe that in some way Christ is a part (if I may use that word) of God's oneness, "the brightness of his glory and the express image of his person," "the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature."

By Christ's life and teaching, we can learn mysteries that were kept hidden since the foundation of the world. Through him we can know unseen truths of the kingdom of God, and by his death he has made it possible for us to receive forgiveness of sins, since he has taken our punishment for us. By his resurrection, if we receive the Holy Spirit as a gift from God through faith in his death and resurrection, we can transcend this dark and lost world and arise to newness of life, and set forth on a journey that culminates in paradise. Moreover, the narratives that we have of him in the divinely inspired gospels present us with the model of the perfect man, and the closer we come to his holy example the happier, wiser, and better we are. Conversely, the farther away we get from his example, the more miserable, wretched, and blind we are, and it is no coincidence that the cruelest monsters of the evil and backward modern age - Hitler, Lenin, Mao, and Stalin - have all had a hatred of Christianity and have all sought to exterminate the church. But they have passed away, while the name of Christ remains high and lifted up.

God's communication with man: the Holy Spirit

It has often been said that the Nazis, or at least some of them, were Christians. Someone even found some German "theologians" who enthusiastically supported Hitler and used them as proof of the connection between Christianity and Naziism. What shall we say about this? If "theologians" supported Hitler, or common people who claimed to be Christians supported the persecution and extermination of the Jews, to what extent does this show a relationship between the teachings of Christ and the teachings of Hitler?

We need to understand clearly what a Christian is. Is someone who denies the fundamentals of the faith a Christian? German "theologians" led the way in the development of biblical criticism in the 19th century. They denied that Moses wrote the Pentateuch; claimed the bible was full of mistakes and errors; denied the deity of Christ; proclaimed all kinds of "theological" rubbish, such as "It doesn't matter if Jesus rose from the dead or not." Were they Christians? One of the aforementioned "theologians," a wolf in sheep's clothing named Kittel, taught at the University of Tubingen. The one who used such a man as proof of the connection between Naziism and Christianity was either ignorant of or deliberately concealed the fact that the University of Tubingen had long since forsaken biblical Christianity and was a fountain of modern critical deceptions. With the leadership of "theologians" who said that Moses couldn't have written the Pentateuch, because they didn't have writing in his time (subsequent research has refuted that error); that the bible is full of myths and legends; that it was cleverly pieced together centuries after the events it purports to show; that the use of different names for God such as "Yahweh" or "Elohim" prove multiple authorship - with such spiritual guidance as this, such preposterous conflation of opinion, whim and fancy with fact, it is no wonder that the German church, after decades of such teaching, was so easily deceived by Hitler. A "theologian" praised Hitler - but what were his views of Christ? Salvation? The new birth? The Holy Spirit? The authority of scripture? What if said "theologian" was not even a theologian at all but a charlatan? Parenthetically, what about all of the non-Christians, including scientists, university professors, left-wingers, liberals, even atheists and Marxists who converted to Naziism? There were many such, especially after 1933.

But what about the murderers, and those who enthusiastically supported them? Are people who deny the basic teachings of Christ Christians? The bible teaches that murderers, and whoever loves and makes a lie, will be denied entrance to the heavenly city. The bible refers to people who are guilty of adultery, fornication, hatred, murders, drunkenness, and says that "they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God."

Being a Christian requires something more than just saying "I am a Christian." The bible teaches this plainly. Unbelievers cannot be too severely blamed for taking such a statement at face value, especially when it comes from a seminary professor, but they should be aware that things are not always what they seem - and nowhere is this more true than in seminaries. Not everyone who claims to be honest is honest. Not everyone who claims to be a friend is a friend. Not everyone who claims to believe in Christ really does so. But what, then, is a Christian?

Christianity goes beyond mere doctrines that can be grasped by the mind and assented to intellectually. There is much more to the teachings of Christ than "Give assent to these doctrines intellectually and you are guaranteed of a place in heaven no matter what you do," though many nominal Christians seem to be contentedly unaware of this. Christ plainly said, "Not everyone that says to me Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that does the will of my Father which is in heaven." Merely saying "I am a Christian" is not enough, even if one is sincere in his statement.

But what is a true Christian? A true Christian is one that through faith in Christ has received the Holy Spirit - as it says in Romans, "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God," and "Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." And what is this Spirit of Christ? How is it received? And what are its manifestations and fruits? Can we tell if it is present or not?

First, as to what this Spirit is, we should be brief before the mysteries of God and recognize that there is much we do not know. Also, we need to remember that what God desires for us to know is revealed in scripture, and we must remain within its boundaries. There is a personal experience of the Spirit that transcends words and allows us to communicate with God directly, and come boldly before the throne of grace, "and rejoice in hope of the glory of God." Our personal experience of God, however, cannot contradict scripture, if it is from the Holy Spirit. The Spirit of God that speaks through scripture and communicates directly with the child of God,  making "intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered," is one and the same Spirit, and will not contradict itself.

What, then, can we say of this Spirit, shed abroad in the hearts of those who have saving faith? It should be obvious that God is not in his dealings with earth limited to one of two options: either appearing in his full glory, in which case we would all perish, since God said "there shall no man see me, and live" - or else on the other hand absenting himself completely, in which case the creation would cease to exist, since it is all sustained by the word of his power.

No, God is able to operate in this world, and in the hearts of men, by his Spirit without revealing all of himself. The bible teaches that he operates by his Spirit, which Spirit is in some way God, yet able to minister on earth while God the Father remains in his supra-celestial glory. As to how this can be, we have already looked at the mysteries of God and the incapacity of the human intellect with regard to the Trinity. Suffice it to say that these are things which the bible teaches, and true Christians experience and have a sure conviction of the inner working of the Spirit. This is why "we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness."

As to how this Spirit is received, its divine perfections and the beauties of its holiness are so contrary to man's dark and sinful human nature that most people prefer to avoid it. This is the reason why some have such a mania for eliminating every possible reminder of Christianity - because their guilt and sin make them hate and fear God. Like Stalin, Mao, and Hitler, and the American Civil Liberties Union, they desire to eliminate Christianity. Such is the wickedness and evil of the human heart, that we run from and even hate the God we should love - it is only if God himself calls us, and reaches out to us, and initiates the salvation process (Christ is "the author and finisher of our faith") that we can have some beginning of a spiritual life.

Some may object that this allows insufficient place for human will. However disagreeable it may seem to some, the bible teaches that we are by nature dead in sin, children of wrath, and God must first reach out to us. Jesus said, "No man can come to me, except the Father which has sent me draw him" - but if someone wants to think that God responds to man in this area, or if they accept God's primacy in theory but want in some way to reserve some place for our will and choice in the salvation process, that is a mistaken but not a heretical position. It is possible for someone to be right doctrinally, but be lacking in love and grace and sympathy for those who are also saved but who have received less illumination.

Anyway, about the receiving of this divine Spirit of peace, wisdom, heavenly love, and eternal life, it is granted by God to those who approach him through faith in Christ. This is a gift that God gives to whomever he wills, apart from any consideration of human merit - since "all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God" and the human race is "all under sin," "that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God." The world hates this message, but it is true nonetheless, whether the entire world rejects it or not.

At  this point it must be pointed out that "faith," according to the biblical definition of the term, is much more than intellectual acceptance or understanding of some facts about Jesus. Biblical faith is a much deeper concept, including not merely our head knowledge, but also our feelings and our manner of life. As the bible says, "The just shall live by faith," and "We walk by faith, not by sight." It is a way of life and a personal communication with God - "That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith" - and those who think that they are automatically guaranteed of the Spirit the instant they understand some doctrines, even some basic truths of Christ, need to examine the scriptures more carefully. The book of Acts teaches that the people of Samaria believed and were baptized, but did not receive the Spirit instantly. Paul writes in Ephesians, saying, "after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise."

As to the manifestations of the Spirit - and this should be kept in mind when we look more closely at the Nazi "Christians" - those who receive this Spirit have literally been born again, as Christ said: "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." As much as the term "born again" has been abused and trivialized, it remains an integral part of Christian doctrine. This spiritual experience however does not completely obliterate the power of sin, which still remains active within the believer, in "the old man," "the flesh" - "for the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak." It does mean, though, that sin does not reign, and we are not enslaved to it, though it may deceive us and trip us up on occasion. There is a new life from above planted within the soul, and its fruits should be manifest. These fruits are described in Galatians:

...the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.

The same passage points out that the works of the flesh, the old, unregenerate man, the natural or worldly man, include not only murder and hatred, as have been pointed out, but also drunkenness, adultery, uncleanness, lasciviousness, envy, wrath, strife, and heresy among others.

An obvious question arises here. If the Christians have these wonderful qualities, why are they not more manifest in the world? That they were powerfully manifest in the first few centuries of the church is one reason - under the providence of God - that Christianity spread with such speed throughout the Roman Empire. They have been manifest at various times, but have never been dominant. As Jesus said, the way to heaven is narrow and few find it, but the road to hell is broad and easy and many go in by it. There has never been a Christian country or a Christian government. In any country, the number of people that are sincerely trying to live for Christ (as opposed to going to church and being baptized as an infant) are a small minority.

A second reason is that the Christian virtues often do not bring the notice and admiration of the world. The world admires the rich, the powerful, the famous, the beautiful, the successful, but sincere followers of Christ have often occupied the lower levels of society. There they patiently forgive and endure and live clean though ordinary lives in obedience to God, without the praise and approval of those whose minds are set on the things of this world. As Paul writes in I Corinthians:

God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God has chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;    And base things of the world, and things which are despised, has God chosen, yes, and things which are not, to bring to nought things which are:    That no flesh should glory in his presence.

A third reason is that natural people often have a positive aversion and dislike to someone that is truly showing the fruits of the Spirit in his life. Some people may be drawn to such a person, it is true, but others prefer to avoid anyone that is serious about God and look at them with a jaundiced eye. This is especially true when the Christian takes a stand on a moral issue, earning the hostility of those who are bothered by their guilty consciences.

It would be nice to stop here, but unfortunately it must also be said that many Christians really do not have the fruits of the Spirit evident in their lives.  The description of the Laodicean church in Revelation describes many Christians today: they imagine they are spiritual, and do not even know that they are "wretched and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked." Paul's first letter to Timothy also refers to such people who are "ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth," "having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof." They have some of them been deceived by a phony gospel of salvation by head-knowledge alone. Others may have started out well, but the seed of God's word once sown in their hearts has been choked out by "the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of other things," so they are unfruitful. Cultural Christianity, even if it includes church membership and attendance, is not enough, and the failure to understand that there are many who call themselves Christians but do not have the Spirit of Christ and hence are not Christians at all though they seem to be has led to many misconceptions.

In connection with this, there has been a drastic decline of Christianity in the modern age which might conceivably be a sign of the end times. Scripture itself prophecies a decline of Christianity. Describing the end times, Christ says "And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall grow cold."  Jesus even asked if there would be any faith at all on earth when he returned - but if the entire world should forget God, his gospel remains true nevertheless and Christ will return in glory to gather together his children, and bring destruction upon the wicked. Whether or not these are the end times, which can be debated, it is true that the many iniquities of modern society, including filthy entertainments, spiritually unclean investments, cheating on income taxes, disobedience to many plain biblical teachings, especially those having to do with women and marriage, excessive prosperity and ease of life, have all contributed to a comfortable and prosperous Christianity in which the fruits of the Spirit are seldom if ever in evidence. The prophet Ezekiel said that the sins of Sodom were "pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness," qualities with which the modern church abounds.

Having said something about why the positive benefits of Christianity are not more clearly evident, let us return to some general observations about the influence of the Holy Spirit in the lives of believers. We will look more closely at the German Christians later, but since it has been so often asserted that the Nazis were Christians, it bears repeating that those who practice hatred and murder and other sins will not go to heaven. These words from Revelation are plain and simple:

And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.    Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.    For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.

This applies to those who do evil in the name of Christ. Whoremongers, murderers, blatant evildoers may go to church regularly, they may be baptized or receive last rites from a priest, they may even convince themselves they are Christians, but if their outward appearance of Christianity is only a mask for iniquity, they will receive a greater condemnation. There is a strong emphasis on works in the New Testament. We are saved only by faith, only by grace, but once we have been saved, if we have the Spirit of Christ, if we walk with Christ, this will be evident, even if imperfectly. This is why Paul in Romans refers to the "revelation and righteous judgement of God" and says that God "will render to every man according to his deeds":

To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:    But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,    Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;    But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:

Therefore, James says "faith without works is dead."

What, however, of those that are true Christians but make mistakes? Paul's first letter to the Corinthians has a number of rebukes directed at those whom he recognized as true Christians, but who in many ways fell short of their calling. Christians are fallen people too, and while unbelievers are justified in holding us to a higher standard, since we claim to have found the way and the truth, it should be remembered that there are different kinds and degrees of Christians - true and false, mature and immature - and that even the best of them can err, sometimes greatly.

Which Christians, then, are false, and which are sincere but mistaken? We cannot always tell just by looking, but what are the sins Paul rebuked in the Corinthian church? Hatred? Cruelty? Mass murder? There was one(!) man guilty of immorality, and the church was severely told that this should not be tolerated. The Corinthian Christians were told not to accept Christians that were fornicators, covetous, drunkards, even railers: "Put away from among yourselves that wicked person."

There was also excessive factionalism, some adhering more to Paul or to Apollos or to Peter, and some even claiming to adhere to Christ but apparently with the wrong attitude. There was envying and strife and division in the church. Some believers were taking each other to court. These were the problems of carnal Christians, problems that were rebuked and corrected. As to Christians that are living in open sin and defending it as good, or openly denying the essentials of the faith, Jesus said "Judge not that you be not judged" - but we are also commanded to discern. We should not condemn and dismiss too proudly, which is judging, but we should be aware that being a Christian brings with it a certain standard of conduct. If we fall and repent, God is merciful - but if we enjoy our sins and defend them, we are in deep trouble spiritually. And mass murderers? Unless they repent, they will go to hell. Going to church on Sunday, receiving the blessing of a priest, appealing to the bible to justify their sin - none of these will save them.

As to the German Christians who enthusiastically supported Hitler, even if they never harmed anyone themselves, for the purposes of this brief introduction to the spiritual understanding that in my view should inform a biblical analysis of the Holocaust, it is sufficient to say that there are certain core doctrines that are essential to scriptural Christianity. Those who reject these core doctrines are not Christians, though they claim to be. As to exactly what those doctrines might be, I would include at the very least the Trinity; the virgin birth and deity of Christ; his death and resurrection and return; and salvation through faith in Christ alone, faith including Christ dwelling in the heart as opposed to mere doctrines dwelling on the lips or in the brain. Someone who denies those is in my view not a Christian. It may be said that I have omitted something. As to those however who say that my definition is too broad, because it should be possible to "believe" in a vague concept of Jesus that is void of these basic teachings, I would say that the bible teaches differently. Moreover, we must have an authoritative scripture. If the bible is not divinely inspired and reliable we have nothing sure to go by.

There is also a certain minimum standard of conduct expected of a Christian. We may fall short of it, I have fallen short many times, but the bible does say that murderers, drunkards, thieves, liars, and immoral people will not go to heaven unless they repent. Those who thought that they could earn God's favor by flagrantly and willfully trampling on Christ's commandment, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," slaughtering or persecuting innocent people, whether they were Nazi "Christians" or 18th century slavers or Renaissance "popes," will find out differently on the final day of judgement.

Having said all of this, it is necessary to draw a distinction between the visible or physical church on the one hand and the spiritual church, the body of Christ on the other. Failure to understand this essential point has caused many unbelievers to blame Jesus Christ and the New Testament for the wicked behaviour of those who were disobeying the teachings of Christ and acting contrary to the New Testament. The physical church is that what the world considers to be the church. It consists of the buildings, the bureaucracy, the leaders, "popes," bishops, and whatnot. It also consists of all of those who call themselves Christians and sincerely consider themselves so to be, whether or not they believe in the basic doctrines and whether or not they have received the Spirit of Christ. The spiritual church is vastly different. It consists only of those who have truly received the Spirit of God by faith in Christ. This excludes many, including church leaders, who would say "I am a Christian" but are in fact deceiving themselves.

That there are those who deceive themselves, thinking themselves to be Christians when they are not, is easily demonstrated from scripture. James said, "Be doers of the word and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves." Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount referred to those who would protest that they had done many things for him, only to be turned away on the Day of Judgement. So much misunderstanding has been caused among unbelievers by those who have the name of a Christian but not the Spirit or the power. Paul writes in Romans, "Now if any man have not the spirit of Christ, he is none of his." We cannot always tell in every case if someone who sins is a false Christian, or one who is stumbling and will later be straightened out - Jesus said, "Judge not, that you be not judged." We can discern though, and we are commanded to discern, that "to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace," as Paul also says in Romans. "For if you live after the flesh you shall die: but if you through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, you shall live. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God."

Those who have been turned "from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God," who have received "forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith," can and do err, but those who practice hatred, cruelty, evil, torture, and murder are not of Christ though they may claim to be, and will not inherit the kingdom of God unless they repent of their wickedness. Those who sincerely followed Christ in his Spirit, not as an effort of human will alone but with God's grace, do not bear a speck or an iota of individual responsibility for the crimes of those who explicitly rejected the most basic teachings of Christ. We will be judged for what we ourselves have done, not for what others have done. Too many Christians feel guilt about the real or alleged responsibility of Christianity and Christians for the Holocaust - but if people rebell against the bible, and others are too naive to recognize evil or too cowardly to withstand it, or even if they embrace the evil and support it, that is not my sin or my responsibility. If antisemitism is inherent in biblical Christianity, in the teachings of scripture itself, that of course is an entirely different matter. This question will be addressed in the next section, "Answering some objections."

It will appear to some that I am defining Christianity in such a way as to escape responsibility for those who have unquestionably done evil in the name of Christ. This is the bible's teaching, however, eternal truth from which none can escape. All of this will be manifested beyond contradiction on the Day of Judgement (words which the world hates to hear). Blaming Christ for those who disobeyed him and acted contrary to his teachings can also be an evasive tactic on the part of those who are looking for any excuse to reject his message.

It is the failure to understand the spiritual nature of Christianity, its inner character and real purpose, that leads someone to conclude: "The Poles were Christians, the Bulgarians were Christians, and they helped the Nazis, or at least did almost nothing to help the Jews. More people could have been saved if the Christians had been more active - therefore, Christianity bears much of the blame for the Holocaust." Apart from the fact that this line of reasoning omits the Danes, the Norwegians, and the Dutch, who with their Protestant backgrounds were much more active in helping the Jews; apart from the fact that many non-Christians also kept their mouths shut and did nothing; apart from the fact that the threats of instant execution or incarceration in a death camp were exceedingly powerful deterrents; apart from the fact that almost all of those who now criticize the Christians so freely would also do nothing to help a stranger or even an old family friend if their own lives were at stake - all of these things aside, many people who behaved wrongly in this terrible crisis were not even Christians at all. They may have been born in Poland or Hungary, they may have gone to church all of their lives, but if they had not received the spirit of Christ by faith in Christ, all of their cultural Christianity was merely an outward shew, void of substance and merit.

Some verses from Galatians make an appropriate conclusion to this section.

Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man sows, that shall he also reap.     For he that sows to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that sows to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting....

Answering some objections

Wanting to be as brief as possible, I had hoped to conclude this overview of some essential considerations, and have been looking forward to attempting an analysis of some other aspects of the Holocaust. However, I have been fortunate in obtaining the first volume of Steven Katz's The Holocaust in Historical Context. In his chapter on medieval anti-Semitism he has a very concise analysis of the extent to which anti-Semitism is inherent in the bible itself. This of course relates to the question of the extent to which Christianity was instrumental in laying the foundations of hostility toward the Jews which many claim came to such hideous fruition in the Holocaust.

I disagree with many of Katz's conclusions and observations, but since he represents a significant point of view in this controversy, and has put together a useful summary of New Testament teachings about the Jews, I think it will be worthwhile to examine his points in some detail.

To begin with, he is much more clear thinking than some in his recognition of the fact that there is a vast gulf between Christianity and Naziism. He says:

It must be explicitly remarked, however banal, that Paul and the authors of the various Gospels - with the exception of Luke - as well as almost all persons mentioned in their narratives, including Jesus, would have been maligned as racial criminals by the biocentric norms of the Third Reich, and therefore marked for inevitable murder. The extermination of thousands of Jewish Christians (i.e., Jews who had converted to Christianity) in the death camps poignantly indicates that something fundamental, mutational, was operative in the Nazi Weltanschauung that had no place in its Christian predecessor. The Nazi mythos, though not wholly sui generis, is more than - and different from - the mere recycling of the Pauline-Gospel soteriological derogation of Judaism. It is still more than its natural development. For although Paul, Mark, Matthew, and John and their master, Jesus, wanted to save the Israel of the Flesh - however corrupt and blind this Israel be and however severe their message toward this end - Hitler wished only to annihilate the Jewish people. [p. 250]

Moreover, he makes what should be an obvious observation, but unfortunately to many is not:  that in the early centuries of the church the clash between Judaism and Christianity was largely polemical (this word "largely" allows room for Jewish persecution of Christians, which I did not see mentioned in this particular section of Katz's book). It took place on the level of theological debate, not in persecution and pogroms. It was not until the emergence of Christianity as an institutional power structure that we begin to see the abuse of power by the church. After all, you can't abuse power if you have none. Katz also refers to this when he says "We must, therefore, exercise extreme caution in transporting back into the rhetorical conflict of these early generations the later anti-Jewish violence of the medieval era - even more the extreme criminality of our own century" [p. 250].

While I greatly appreciate Katz's much needed clarification on these key points, I disagree with his analysis of New Testament teachings on the Jews. Of course, there is a vast difference in our presuppositions, our starting points. I look at the New Testament as the divinely inspired word of God, and consider everything in it to be truth. Katz does not, so obviously our interpretations must necessarily differ.

For example, in the section of chapter 6 (vol. 1) subtitled "New Testament Foundations: The Origins of the Myth,"  he attempts to show that "pre-modern anti-Semitism" is derived from the New Testament, and says that hostility toward the Jews in the centuries preceding the modern era was profoundly religious in character.

I have already made the observation that hatred, cruelty, and persecution are not the calling of the Christian. In his letter to the Galatians Paul says, as clearly as human language can express, that hatred, wrath, murder, drunkenness, immorality, and other sins are works of the flesh, that is, of the natural man, and "they which do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God." People who shrieked "The Jews killed Christ! Death to the Jews!" were totally ignorant of the Gospel of Christ, and if the church and the theologians encouraged these wicked deeds, so much the worse for the false and evil church and the blind theologians when they have to stand before Jesus Christ and given an account for all that they have thought, said, and done. Any true Christian recognizes in his heart, by divine conviction, that insofar as we sin, and we all sin, we are individually guilty of the death of Christ. They have experienced in their hearts the truth of Wesley's grand old hymn which says, "Died he for me who caused his pain, for me who him to death pursued? Amazing love, how can it be, that thou my God shouldst die for me?"

But Katz asserts that "One cannot avoid the fact that virulent anti-Judaism is part of the Christian theological heritage" [pp. 235-36]. Recognizing that some claim such hostility is incidental to Christianity, "a result of historical accident rather than theological indispensability" [p. 236], he considers their position carefully, but takes the opposite view. He says:

...an independent study of the New Testament and patristic sources, however, has forced me to side with those who contend for its necessity, its logical inherence, as the reverse side of the gospel's kerygma. For it is impossible not to read the Pauline epistles, the synoptic Gospels, and later patristic sources as affirming two salient claims: (1) Judaism is, since the coming of Christ, a spiritual cadaver and (2) Jews and Judaism stand in dishonoring opposition, at least since the first Easter, and however qualified by theological antinomies, to God's salvific plan for humankind. In these two sharply poised theses lie the roots of that religious anti-Judaism that has reverberated so intemperately through the last two millennia and that in refashioned, unprecedented, even ideologically incommensurable forms has laid the foundation for modern anti-Semitism [p. 236].

True, there is a "theological indispensability," a "logical inherence," in the belief that since God has revealed himself in Christ, those who have rejected Christ have rejected God. This is a basic biblical teaching, as is seen in two verses from John: "He that believes on him is not condemned: but he that believes not is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God," and "He that believes on the Son has everlasting life: and he that believes not the son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abides on him."

What some fail to understand is, that this does not apply to the Jews only, though it does apply to the Jews. It applies to the entire human race. Jews who reject Christ are outside of God's family, but so are Japanese, Germans, or Bolivians who reject Christ. So also are many Christians, who have a certain head knowledge of doctrines, but do not have the Spirit or the fruits of the Spirit. And, as has been said already, the Christians' calling is not to hate and kill those that are outside of God's grace, but rather to help them find it. This is accomplished only by preaching the word in the Spirit, and living the word in the Spirit. It is not accomplished by ghettoes, pogroms, and persecutions.

So, the belief that the Jews and everyone else who rejects Christ are lost and in darkness is biblical - but this should not lead to antisemitism. It should lead to prayer, and love, and a desire to help more people come to Christ for forgiveness of sins and eternal life in paradise. In rejecting Christ, Jews do stand in opposition to the teachings of Christ, but so do the vast majority of people in the world, Europe and America not excepted. There are even some in the church who accept Christ with their mouths but reject him in their hearts and manifestly have no great desire to follow his teachings.

Katz goes on to examine a key biblical doctrine which he calls a "fundamental attack on Judaism's spiritual worth" [p. 237] - that the blessings of Abraham have been passed on to the church ("church" meaning not the external power structure, but the body of true believers); that believing Christians are the true Israel, while the nation of the Jews has been found to be unfaithful. It is a biblical teaching. Jews who are outside of faith in Christ are Jews physically, but not spiritually, while those who have a living faith in Christ are children of Abraham in spirit. But this is not a cause to attack Jews or a license for hatred, since God still has a purpose for the Jews (about which more later).

Katz then refers to a passage in Galatians as being a polemic against Judaism. To me, it is not a polemic against the Jews at all, but the Spirit of God speaking through Paul. Torah itself says, "Cursed be he that confirms not all the words of this law to do them," and Paul refers to it in this passage, saying "Cursed is everyone that continues not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them."

Who can keep the whole law? No one. Even Moses himself disobeyed God when he struck the rock in anger. Saying that we cannot be saved by keeping the Jewish law is not to despise the law. Paul says in Romans, "Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good." But the power of sin that lives in us makes it impossible for us to fulfill the law adequately from our hearts. Hence, we need forgiveness for sin, and forgiveness requires propitiation and atonement. This propitiation and atonement was foreshadowed in the sacrificial system of the Old Testament, the ceremonial law (as opposed to the moral law), but was and is completed in Christ, who offered a complete and divine sacrifice.

Is all of this false, a clever concoction of human wisdom? If so, then it can possibly be construed as a polemic against Judaism. But what if it is inspired by God and is divine truth? Then it is not a polemic, but a revelation of the fact that what God began with the Jews, he brought to its perfect fulfillment in Christ. As Paul says in the same passage, "Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us...That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ...."

As to the statement that this means "Judaism is dark, carnal, deadly, unredeemed, and unredeeming," which is called "Paul's fateful, radical indictment of Judaism," that is partly correct. That describes the spiritual condition of the Jews, but also of the entire human race in its natural state. It applies to the carnal and secular philosophies of Kant and Hegel, to the "theologies" of those who do not even believe in the bible, to the complacency of those who believe that Darwin has liberated them from having to think about their creator, to all of the manifold manifestations of unbelief. But it is a mistake to assume, that the entire Torah is now rendered worthless. The ceremonial law has been replaced by a higher revelation, just as God revealed many things to Moses that he did not reveal to Abraham, but the moral law is reemphasized and even strengthened in the New Testament.

Honoring your parents, not murdering or stealing or bearing false witness, placing God first above everything else, these are not outdated Torah laws but commands of God that we ignore to our detriment. But, we cannot earn God's favor by doing these things. First, we need forgiveness and the spirit of God granted by faith in Christ - then we can begin to live, however imperfectly, within the confines of God's holy and righteous law. This is why Paul says in Galatians, "For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God." Perhaps some Christians will disagree, but I think it is safe to say that Christians are obligated to follow as best as we can all of the Old Testament law that has been specifically reaffirmed in the New Testament.

Katz then goes on to object to Paul's application in Romans of a verse from Isaiah, in which God speaking through Isaiah says "I have spread out my hands all the day unto a rebellious people, which walks in a way that was not good, after their own thoughts, a people that provokes me to anger continually...." Paul states this as "All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people."

The books of the prophets and even the Torah itself contain indictments of the Jews. The opening verses of Isaiah contain a much stronger condemnation of the Jews than anything found in the letters of Paul - was Isaiah laying the foundations of anti-Semitism? The Jews were in fact a wicked and sinful people, punished by God in the Old Testament many times. Even in the days of Moses they were sinful and rebellious - and by what process of transformation have they now become holy and righteous?

Jews who reject Christ are living in darkness - but then, so are many other people living in darkness, including many so-called Christians. The great majority of the human race is in darkness, as John said: "The whole world lies in wickedness." And even the true Christians have many sins and failings, disobey God, fail to live up to his teachings, and know that in essence they are no better than anyone else. This is why Paul writing to the Christians in Ephesus, to the saints and to the faithful in Christ Jesus, reminds them that both he and they too were once "dead in trespasses and sins," "by nature the children of wrath, even as others." But God has had mercy on us, and given us life in Christ, not so that we might hate those who have not received mercy as we have, but rather so that God "might show the exceeding riches of his grace" in us. Where is hatred and cruelty here? It is excluded - and woe unto those who have perverted the gospel of Christ into a gospel of evil-doing. They will receive a greater punishment.

It would be possible perhaps to stop here, but Katz has devoted a great deal of time and effort to understanding the New Testament and its relationship to anti-Semitism, and his efforts demand more of a response. Continuing therefore, we find the assertion that the synoptic authors wrote "in the decades after Paul's death" [p. 242], and that in their writings the "tradition of apostasy" "reaches its wretched climax." He is referring to the verses in the Gospels where the crowd of Jews calls for Christ's death. This "sinister" tale - which is not sinister at all but is only a factual account of what really happened - is made worse in the eyes of Katz (and many others too of course) by the addition of the sentence in Matthew: "His blood be on us, and on our children."

To begin with, there is no evidence whatsoever to support the assertion that the Gospels were written after Paul's death. Many New Testament "scholars" who confuse their opinions with fact and their personal preferences with scholarship have given Katz a seemingly scholarly basis for this assertion, but there is not a scrap of evidence to refute the belief that the Gospels were written earlier. It is all a matter of presuppositions based on faith - it is not science, and attempts to appear scientific on the part of New Testament scholars bring them less respect, not more, in the eyes of those who truly know what science is. I wonder about the salvation experience and the knowledge of Christ of many of these "scholars," but that is another topic.

Echoing them, Katz says that John was writing "most probably" [p. 243] in the second century - with the obvious implication that his account is inaccurate. But the very words "most probably" convey uncertainty. These are words - "most probably," "almost certainly," "nearly certain" - that too many New Testament scholars use to inflate their speculations and give them a greater appearance of reliability. I am not referring to Katz here. It is not surprising if non-Christians take at face value the pronouncements of seminary professors and theologians, some of whom deny the basics of the faith and are not Christians at all. These wolves clothed as sheep are enemies of the cross of Christ.

Returning to the topic, Katz in examining the Gospel narratives draws attention to two points: Pilate's washing of his hands, and the statement of the mob calling for Christ's blood to be upon them and upon their children. Referring to the first of these, Katz says in a footnote [p. 243] that the contrast between Pilate washing his hands and proclaiming his innocence on the one hand, and the mob calling for Christ's death on the other, "has been recognized by almost every Christian commentator on Matthew from patristic to modern times." Thus, "Israel, the Jewish people, is responsible for the crucifixion, not Pilate or Rome" [ibid.].

More will be said about the alleged bloodguiltiness of the Jews in the following section when I examine God's plan and purpose for the Jews. About Pilate, there are several points that can be made. First, the mere assertion of innocence does not make one innocent. Second, the bible plainly states that Pilate knew Christ was innocent and that the Pharisees had delivered him up out of envy. Someone who knowingly condemns an innocent man to death for the sake of expedience is not guiltless at all, but guilty, no matter how much he tries to pretend otherwise. Water does not remove guilt, and the sad futility of Pilate's gesture should be immediately apparent. Thirdly, the Romans did not care about Christ. He was not important to them. Jesus was executed only because the Jewish leaders demanded it. They were the prime movers, and Pilate was only an instrument - but a guilty instrument.

Finally, this is not an account cleverly devised long after the fact to make the Jews look bad and to absolve the Gentiles of guilt as Katz and many others believe (without any scientific evidence). It is a divinely inspired and truthful account of what occurred. I base this claim not on science but on faith, which is far above science. Katz might object to this - if so, his objection falls outside of the boundaries which he himself drew at the beginning of his book, where he stated his desire to present only what was "open to debate and falsification" [p. 13]. He stated his desire to avoid "unnecessary and unsubstantiable metaphysical claims" [ibid.], but now has gone beyond those boundaries when he asserts that the Gospel narratives were written decades after Paul's death, and believes that they are not factual or accurate and reasons accordingly.

He has in his analysis of the main themes of the holocaust kept as far as I can see within the boundaries of his original intention, and has been very consistent in discussing the holocaust within the limited "ordinary rules of historical and philosophical inquiry" [ibid.], but his faith statements about the bible here are not falsifiable. These topics transcend scientific falsification - which falsification is confined to the paltry material plane, far beneath the highest implications of the Holocaust. The truth or falsehood of the Gospel narratives is of a different order entirely.

That questions of religious faith are not open to scientific investigation, by the way, does not mean that they are less real, or unreal. It means rather that material science is an inferior form of knowledge, dwarfish, crippled, confined to the lowest plane of reality, and blind to spiritual things - the boastful materialistic triumphalism and short-sighted epistemological imperialism of some scientists notwithstanding.

Science cannot tell me about God, or where I go when I die. It cannot meet the deepest needs of the human soul - it cannot even tell me if it is right to steal $5.00 from the company's petty cash fund if I am sure I can get away with it. If we want to understand the Holocaust, or any other significant moral question for that matter, we must go beyond the confines of the laboratory and seek higher ways of knowing.

Getting back to Pilate's handwashing, what of the assertion that this has been recognized by nearly all commentators as showing the guilt of the Jews and the innocence of the Gentiles? I have indicated otherwise, but who am I to go against mountains of theological books, no matter how dead and lifeless many of them might be? That is a great weight of human authority, but how much authority does it have really? Let's remember the words of Christ about not judging by outward appearance. Fortunately, there have been some commentators within the traditional Protestant tradition who are capable of understanding this passage in a more spiritual way. After all, "Blame it all on the Jews" is foreign to a genuinely spiritual approach, and it did not take me long to find a much more solidly biblical approach to this passage in the writings of an 18th-century Christian writer, Matthew Henry.

I am not the familiar with all of the doctrines of Matthew Henry, but know that he is widely respected in conservative Christian circles. A quick search of his online bible commentary revealed the following profound analysis of the innocence of Pilate and the guilt of the Jews [www.ccel.org/h/henry/mhc2/MHC40027.HTM]:

Pilate is characterized by the Roman writers of that time, as a man of a rough and haughty spirit, willful and implacable, and extremely covetous and oppressive; the Jews had a great enmity to his person, and were weary of his government, and yet they made use of him as the tool of their malice against Christ...    They delivered him to Pontius Pilate; according to that which Christ had often said, that he should be delivered to the Gentiles. Both Jews and Gentiles were obnoxious to the judgment of God, and concluded under sin, and Christ was to be the Saviour both of Jews and Gentiles; and therefore Christ was brought into the judgment both of Jews and Gentiles, and both had a hand in his death. See how these corrupt church-rulers abused the civil magistrate, making use of him to execute their unrighteous decrees, and inflict the grievance which they had prescribed, Isa. x. 1. Thus have the kings of the earth been wretchedly imposed upon by the papal powers, and condemned to the drudgery of extirpating with the sword of war, as well as that of justice, those whom they have marked for heretics, right or wrong, to the great prejudice of their own interests...

Notice that he points to spiritual principles of sin that manifested themselves also in the papal powers, who abused the power of the government to destroy innocent people. The sins and failings of the Jews as recorded in scripture are human sins and failings that we all share. Moreover, showing that this is not an occasion for hatred toward the Jews, Henry also explains that "Jesus stood before the governor, as the prisoner before the judge. We could not stand before God because of our sins, nor lift up our face in his presence, if Christ had not been thus made sin for us. He was arraigned that we might be discharged...." True Christians know that God brought us salvation out of this evil, that it was part of his plan, and that Christ offered himself willingly for us.

Returning to the subject of Pilate, we find that Henry says of him:

(2.)This puts him into a great strait, betwixt the peace of his own mind, and the peace of the city; he is loth to condemn an innocent man, and yet loth to disoblige the people, and raise a devil that would not be soon laid. Had he steadily and resolutely adhered to the sacred laws of justice, as a judge ought to do, he had not been in any perplexity; the matter was plain and past dispute, that a man in whom was found no fault, ought not to be crucified, upon any pretence whatsoever, nor must an unjust thing be done, to gratify any man or company of men in the world; the cause is soon decided; Let justice be done, though heaven and earth come together--Fiat justitia, ruat c?lum...                                                    (3.) Pilate thinks to trim the matter, and to pacify both the people and his own conscience too, by doing it, and yet disowning it, acting the thing, and yet acquitting himself from it at the same time. Such absurdities and self-contradictions do they run upon, whose convictions are strong, but their corruptions stronger. Happy is he (saith the apostle, Rom. xiv. 22) that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth; or, which is all one, that allows not himself in that thing which he condemns. Now Pilate endeavours to clear himself from the guilt, [1.] By a sign; He took water, and washed his hands before the multitude; not as if he thought thereby to cleanse himself from any guilt contracted before God, but to acquit himself before the people, from so much as contracting any guilt in this matter; as if he had said, "If it be done, bear witness that it is none of my doing." He borrowed the ceremony from that law which appointed it to be used for the clearing of the country from the guilt of an undiscovered murder (Deut. xxi. 6, 7); and he used it the more to affect the people with the conviction he was under of the prisoner's innocency; and, probably, such was the noise of the rabble, that, if he had not used some such surprising sign, in the view of them all, he could not have been heard. [2.] By a saying; in which, First, He clears himself; I am innocent of the blood of this just person. What nonsense was this, to condemn him, and yet protest that he was innocent of his blood! For men to protest against a thing, and yet to practise it, is only to proclaim that they sin against their consciences. Though Pilate professed his innocency, God charges him with guilt, Acts iv. 27. Some think to justify themselves, by pleading that their hands were not in the sin; but David kills by the sword of the children of Ammon, and Ahab by the elders of Jezreel. Pilate here thinks to justify himself, by pleading that his heart was not in the action; but here is an averment which will never be admitted. Protestatio non valet contra factum--In vain does he protest against the deed which at the same time he perpetrates. Secondly, He casts it upon the priests and people; "See ye to it; if it must be done, I cannot help it, do you answer it before God and the world." Note, Sin is a brat that nobody is willing to own; and many deceive themselves with this, that they shall bear no blame if they can but find any to lay the blame upon; but it is not so easy a thing to transfer the guilt of sin as many think it is. The condition of him that is infected with the plague is not the less dangerous, either for his catching the infection from others, or his communicating the infection to others; we may be tempted to sin, but cannot be forced... ...Observe, 1. Where this was done--in the common hall. The governor's house, which should have been a shelter to the wronged and abused, is made the theatre of this barbarity. I wonder that the governor, who was so desirous to acquit himself from the blood of this just person, would suffer this to be done in his house. Perhaps he did not order it to be done, but he connived at it; and those in authority will be accountable, not only for the wickedness which they do, or appoint, but for that which they do not restrain, when it is in the power of their hands...

Yet, in spite of the great spiritual depth of this analysis, we find that even a sound expositor like Matthew Henry is not above reproach. Concerning the blood guilt of the Jews, he says:

How righteous God was, in his retribution according to this imprecation; they said, His blood be on us, and on our children; and God said Amen to it, so shall thy doom be; as they loved cursing, so it came upon them. The wretched remains of that abandoned people feel it to this day; from the time they imprecated this blood upon them, they were followed with one judgement after another, till they were quite laid waste, and made an astonishment, a hissing, and a byword; yet on some of them, and some of theirs, this blood came, not to condemn them, but to save them; divine mercy, upon their repenting and believing, cut off this entail, and then the promise was again to them, and to their children. God is better to us and ours than we are.

It would have been better for him to point out that many Jews were not involved in this imprecation of blood, but he does say that the curse is not irrevocable - and he also knew that the calling of the Christian is not to visit God's wrath on unbelievers. Also, Henry might have contradicted himself somewhat in saying elsewhere that the suffering of the Jews was caused not by the blood imprecation, but by their own sinful actions. Earlier he had said:

This rude and brutish people [referring to the mob, not to all Jews, not to Peter and John and Mary Magdalene, or the Jews who lamented Christ's crucifixion] fell to high words, and began to threaten Pilate what they would do if he did not gratify them; and how great a matter might this fire kindle, especially when the priests, those great incendiaries, blew the coals! Now this turbulent tumultuous temper of the Jews, by which Pilate was awed to condemn Christ against his conscience, contributed more than any thing to the ruin of that nation not long after; for their frequent insurrections provoked the Romans to destroy them, though they had reduced them, and their inveterate quarrels among themselves made them an easy prey to the common enemy. Thus their sin was their ruin.

Note that he does not say that Israel was destroyed by the Romans because the Jews killed Christ or called for his blood to be upon them. After Christ's death, they were offered and many of them received forgiveness. They suffered not because of the act, but because of persistent unbelief and disobedience afterward. Henry (not even dreaming of course of a Holocaust) alludes to this when he says that many of their sufferings were brought upon them by their own "tumultuous temper" - that is, as a result of their own faults - and it is true that if they had followed the teachings of Christ and accepted Roman rule there would have been no rebellion and hence no destruction of Israel. But, insofar as he does attribute the suffering of the Jews to their participation in the death of Christ, I am sure he would recognize that this suffering, like their suffering in bible times, was inflicted by wicked men who would themselves come under the judgement of God. And, since God promised through Moses that the Jews would be blessed if they obeyed him and punished if they disobeyed him, it is scriptural to assert that their sufferings in the Diaspora have been the result of God's displeasure.

As to the other point, that the Jews called for Christ's blood to be upon them and their children, more will be said about that in the examination of Christian attitudes toward the Jews. For the present, suffice it to say that the apostles did not assume that because of a comparatively small mob the entire Jewish people was therefore bound in an iron and eternal curse that absolved Christians from their obligations to show the love of Christ to all men.

As to some other statements by Katz, does the Christian bible say that the Jews persecuted the prophets? Their own Tanakh says the same. Other people have persecuted Christians as well - this is human sin, not Jewish sin. Did Jesus denounce the Pharisees? But his denunciations were just and righteous - and they are not to be equated with a denunciation of the Jews as a whole. He did not denounce the woman taken in adultery, or the tax collector, or the rich young ruler, or the thief on the cross. He denounced the false leaders of a perverted Judaism that was very far from the faith of Abraham and Moses and the prophets. And I believe similar denunciations today could be made, not of the drug addicts or the thieves or the murderers or whatever, but against liberal "Christian" "pastors" and "theologians" who have done so much damage to the church by their false teachings.

They do not go into heaven themselves and they keep others from going in. They preach useless sermons and write long books of dead theology and will receive the greater damnation for it. They say that God will not judge, that he will not punish, that we are free to enjoy ourselves, and completely omit the weightier matters of law, judgement,  righteousness, holiness, and faith. They flatter and encourage people in their sins, and many of the sins that afflict America today can be laid at the door of the apostate church - much of what Christ speaking God's truth said to the scribes and the Pharisees and the lawyers can be and should be applied to apostate liberal Christian leaders today. Unfortunately, it also applies to some in the conservative camp who have the outward appearance of righteousness, but deny the power thereof. These words of Christ are not anti-Jewish, they are anti-hypocrisy and anti-deceit - and Jews have no monopoly on the sins Jesus denounced. That is a witness of the Holy Spirit that is sadly lacking in the church today, to convict the world of sin - not for the sake of condemnation, but for the sake of salvation.

Katz also asserts that the Gospels portray the Jews as guilty of sin, and doomed unless they accept Christ's suffering and experience a spiritual reversal [p. 245]. This is correct; the Gospels do assert this - however, while the Jews are guilty of sin and need to believe in Christ, this applies to the whole world. We have already looked at a number of verses stating that the entire world is under sin and guilty before God.

Reference is then made to the parable of the vineyard and its "anti-Jewish animus." In the parable, which Jesus tells to "the chief priests and the elders of the people," the householder destroys the wicked husbandmen who beat and killed first his servants and then his son. After telling this parable, which refers to the Jewish rejection of earlier prophets and finally of Christ, Jesus goes on to say to the Jewish leaders, "The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof."

This is cited as an example of the "doom" that the New Testament pronounces on the Jewish people, but is this "doom," or statement of fact? Later we will look at the verses stating that the blessing of Abraham that comes through faith in God has been granted to those who believe in the Son that God has sent - and it is withheld from the nation of Israel, until such time as God sees fit to remove the veil that has been placed over the hearts of the great majority of Jews who do not accept Christ. Is this the misguided opinion of human authors who betray an animus against the Jews, or is it divinely inspired revelation of what God is doing and will do? Once again it is a matter of faith, foolishness to the natural mind, but more clear than day to those who see with the eyes of faith. However, if the bible is true, and the truly spiritual Christians have inherited the kingdom of God (not all those who claim or even sincerely think themselves to be Christians however), how are they supposed to behave toward those who are outside of the kingdom? There are many verses about how Christians are supposed to behave toward unbelievers, and evil-doing is found in none of them.

Neither does Luke condemn the Jews when he says "that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God." It refers to those who are praised and admired for the outward appearance of goodness, while their true inward spiritual state is very different. This applies to the whole human race, not just to the Jews. True, Christ is speaking directly to the Pharisees here, but does anyone imagine that God rejects hypocrisy in Pharisees but accepts it in everyone else? It applies also to Christian leaders, whether today or in the Middle Ages, popes, bishops, priests, pastors, theologians, and seminary professors if they are great in men's eyes and appear fair outwardly but within are full of wickedness. Even someone as blinded by medieval superstitions as Dante placed a pope in hell.

Katz continues his analysis of anti-Jewish bias in the New Testament by referring to a couple of other passages - one in Matthew, where the king was angry at those who mistreated and killed his servants, and sent troops to burn their city; the other is a famous passage in John where Jesus refers to those who wanted to kill him as children of the devil.

Concerning the first, Christ's parable refers only to the murder of the king's servants, not of his son, so this relates to the destruction of the first temple by the Babylonians. The Old Testament teaches that God in his anger sent the Babylonians to destroy Jerusalem and the temple because of the wickedness of the Jews. I wonder if Katz believes that God actually sent the Babylonians to destroy the city as the Tanakh says. If he does, I doubt that he would see this as indicative of a deep anti-Jewish bias. And, if the first destruction of Jerusalem is directly attributed by the Jews' own writings to the wickedness of Israel and to God's anger, to what shall we attribute the second destruction by the Romans? Moses did not say, "If the Jews honor and obey God he will destroy their kingdom and their city and cast them out of the land."

As to the second passage in John, Jesus said to some people that they were children of the devil - and who were these people? the humble? the poor? the lowly? the oppressed? No, he was talking directly to those who wanted to kill him, to murderers, as the bible plainly states. Once again, this denunciation of sin applies to all, not to the Jews alone. It is in connection with this that John also says "The whole world lies in wickedness." Murderers and liars whoever they may be are children of the devil, for the devil "was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him." This means that the Nazis also were children of the devil, murderers and liars - and Christians are supposed to show God's truth and love to murderers and liars and fornicators and immoral people, so that they may be delivered from the power of Satan and brought into the kingdom of God.

Katz goes on to draw a conclusion:

We, therefore, discern in the New Testament itself - in this anti-Jewish theology of fulfillment, displacement, and negation, and in these accusations of apostasy and deicide - the origination of the abiding and tragic conflict between Judaism and Christianity [p. 248].

I would say, since real persecution of the Jews did not begin until centuries after Christ's death, that the real origin of the conflict is not in the teachings of the New Testament. After all, while asserting rightly the lostness of those who reject Christ - not only the Jews - the New Testament also says that Christians have been entrusted with the gospel of reconciliation, and there are many instructions about holiness, obedience to God, and real (as opposed to theoretical) righteousness. No, the real origin of persecution begins with the transformation of the church into a worldly power structure centuries after the resurrection of Christ (and when the Jewish leaders had the power they were the persecutors, and used force and violence to suppress unwelcome beliefs). This addition of the carnal element of political and worldly power, with the further addition of medieval heresies, superstitions, and false teachings, led to a church wholly or largely void of the Spirit of Christ, and hence open to the manipulations of the devil, the father of all liars and murderers, be they Catholic, Protestant, Moslem, Hindu, atheist, or Jew.

More specifically, medieval Catholicism grew by degrees into a travesty of the Christian faith, and nowhere is this more clearly seen than in the vicious brutality of the Inquisition and the ugly barbarism of the Crusades (and of course many Catholics lived quiet lives and were not involved in either of these manifestations of sin). As Christ said, a bad tree bears bad fruit. These monstrosities have nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus Christ. In fact, it was not the teachings of the bible which led to the persecution of the Jews; it was rather the failure to understand and apply the teachings of the bible that led to the persecution of the Jews. Yes, the unbelieving Jews are as a nation outside of the grace of God, but they will be restored to it someday, and in the meantime Christians are to treat them as they would treat anyone else outside the faith: as candidates for the Gospel. Even those who do not believe that the Jews will be restored as a nation recognize that some individual Jews can be saved by faith in Christ like anyone else, and since we do not know which individuals might respond to the Gospel message, we must treat all alike. And even if Jews or anyone else rejects the message, our calling is to follow Christ who practiced no violence and no physical compulsion. Paul was attacked by a mob that tried to kill him and after he was rescued by Roman soldiers he continued to try and get through to his attackers. This kind of zeal is conspicuously absent from the church today. It was also conspicuously absent from much of the medieval church, which often had no good news to share, only hatred, cruelty, ignorance, and superstition. Incidentally, it should be pointed out that not only Jews suffered in medieval Europe. It is not as if medieval Europe was a garden of peace and spiritual enlightenment in which only the Jews were badly treated while everyone else was justly treated - though the Jews were singled out to be sure. The Europeans were cruel to the Jews, but also cruel at times to each other. Even Christians who were not agreeable to the "church" were also killed - this was not because of anti-Jewish bias in the bible, but because of human sin and wickedness.

Thus, we can say that there is a direct line between the medieval persecutions of Jews and the holocaust - it was the same father of lies and murder, the devil, that was at work, though in different ways and degrees in different times and situations. But while there is an invisible spiritual connection between the persecutions of the Middle Ages and the holocaust, there is a vast gulf between those and the teachings of Jesus Christ and the apostles. And, there is also a great degree of difference between medieval and modern evil as well, since the Nazis not only had the added power of technology, which (thanks to science) greatly expanded their power beyond anything earlier generations could have imagined - the Nazis also had an ideology which made the extermination of the entire Jewish nation seem like a positive good, a benefit to be rendered to the human race. This unique element was lacking in the Middle Ages, as Katz demonstrates, and this element was profoundly modern.

It should be clear that the teachings of Christ and the apostles in and of themselves, no matter how they may have been distorted later, have nothing to do with persecution of any kind. Insofar as they condemn the sinfulness of the Jewish leaders, such condemnations are confined only to the leaders. Insofar as they refer to the sinfulness of those who are outside of faith in Christ, and who try to earn God's favor by keeping the rules, they do apply to the Jewish people as a whole, but also to the entire human race - for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.

Thus, it is unreasonable to connect teachings of the bible with even medieval anti-Semitism, let alone modern Nazi anti-Semitism, which as we shall see was predicated upon racial and "scientific" principles entirely alien to Christianity. Katz himself is very careful to draw some important distinctions, and some of his comments in this regard were cited at the beginning of this section. He makes a few more comments which I think merit repetition at the end of his section on the New Testament:

To affirm, to insist upon, these categorical distinctions between New Testament anti-Judaism and Naziism is not to exonerate even partially the New Testament's own specific, extreme, and ubiquitous form of anti-Judaism, but it is to insist on its particularity. And it is to insist that one avoid the "fallacy of origins" - that is mistakenly thinking that because we have identified the origin of an idea we have explained all later forms and uses of the idea. To say that the New Testament is the primary source of anti-Semitism in the western tradition is not equivalent to asserting that the New Testament equals Auschwitz. Guilt and responsibility come in many forms. There is a necessary, if iatrogenic, connection between Paul and the Shoah, but the connection is neither simple, direct, nor unmediated [p. 251].

As much as he tries to be careful to arrive at a correct conclusion according to recognized principles of logic, without the taint of emotionalism or bias, I have to say that Katz' analysis of this subject is not in my view as rigorously logical as he hoped it would be. For one thing, in those of his writings that I have seen, he shows a lack of familiarity with some of the most fundamental aspects of the New Testament message: love, grace, mercy, and forgiveness. The Jewish leaders and a Jewish mob (not all Jews) had Christ killed - and what was the response of the apostles? The teaching that Christ willingly laid down his life for us, and that by his death and resurrection he opened they way for us to a restored communion with God. This message of forgiveness was freely offered to all, Jews and Gentiles, and Jews who accepted it were welcomed, Jews who did not were left to go their own way without the least compunction and hostility. Surely if hostility to Jews was such a central part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, it would not have first materialized centuries after his death, under the rule of a medieval church that had demonstrably strayed very far from the message of its founder. In all of his citations from Paul, Katz would have done well to include this:

Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men.     If it be possible, as much as lies in you, live peaceably with all men.     Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, says the Lord.     Therefore if your enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing you shall heap coals of fire on his head.     Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

On this point it is sufficient to say, that if everyone had followed all of the teachings of the New Testament, there would have been no anti-Semitism of any kind.

What, then, is the "primary source" of anti-Semitism in the western tradition? The primary source is Satan and his demons, "the rulers of the darkness of this world," "spiritual wickedness in high places," "the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now works in the children of disobedience," as Paul says in Galatians. The secondary source is sinful men ignorant of the grace of God - as it says in John, "whosoever commits sin is the servant of sin," but "If the Son therefore shall make you free, you shall be free indeed." Servants of the devil are well described by Paul in his letter to the Ephesians - and having recently read Martin Gilbert's The Holocaust, the phrase "being past feeling" has added force. Would that the instigators of pogroms had understood these words - but God will judge them completely and fairly.

This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that you henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind,     Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart:     Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.     But you have not so learned Christ;     If so be that you have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus.

There is no connection whatever between this and the Holocaust. There are several strands or levels of causality that combined to produce the Holocaust - the historical, the philosophical, and the spiritual - and Paul had nothing to do with any of them.

Concerning the historical factors, there are obvious external phenomena agreed upon by all students of the subject: the defeat of Germany in WWI; the imposition by the Allies of a government alien to centuries of German tradition; the economic crises of the 20's and 30's; the military victories of Hitler - these and other factors of course have nothing to do with the bible.

As to the philosophical factors, I hope to deal with them at more length in the section of this essay dealing with modernism in general and Germany in particular. As Katz easily shows, the idea of exterminating all of the Jews was foreign to pre-modern anti-Semitism. In his work The Scientific Origins of National Socialism Daniel Gasman has examined in detail the more immediate intellectual origins of Naziism, and from what I have seen of his work so far they have nothing to do with the bible, and are in fact predicated upon the assumption that the bible is an outdated and unscientific book of legends and superstitions (these are my words, not Gasman's). It is obvious but nevertheless worth mentioning, that these evils arose in an age characterized by the rejection of Christianity, and it arose in the minds of men who despised Christianity.

For now I only assert the profoundly modern quality of the Shoah - I hope to give substance to that assertion later. The Nazis of course did not invent evil - but it was some conspicuous features of modernity that allowed the innate evil in the human heart to flourish and reach previously undreamed of heights. One of these conspicuous features was not the bible, but rather the rejection of the bible, which along with other things led to a transvaluation of values in which evil came to be seen as good, and good came to be seen as evil.

As to the spiritual origins of the holocaust, this is an aspect that many prefer to avoid. This has to do not only with such questions as the existence of God and the problem of evil; it also has a great deal to do with the Jewish people themselves. Is there a connection between the fact that the one people most responsible for bringing God's light into the world was also the one people to experience the most concentrated and intense expression of hatred and barbarism in the history of the world? Who or what is this strange people? And the spiritual aspect also includes an understanding of man himself. How is it that he is capable of virtue and vice, folly and wisdom, cruelty and kindness, intelligence and stupidity? The Christian account of man's divine origin and subsequent fall can account for this; the secular account of man as a beast raised up from the slime by a purposeless impersonal process cannot - but many avoid these questions altogether, to their loss.

More will be said about the Jews in the following section, but something more should be said about Katz' analysis of patristic anti-Semitism which follows his analysis of the bible. I won't comment on this section in detail - I have little or no interest in the patristic writers and they mean nothing to me personally. The bible is or should be our standard and our guide, and if some deviate from its plain teachings as to how Christians should conduct themselves when dealing with those outside of the faith, it is their own fault. Some of these alleged "Fathers," who came along centuries after the birth of the church and then proceeded to zealously distort its teachings were not fathers at all - and didn't Jesus say "Call no man father, for God is your father," referring to religious titles? And, for every Chrysostom or Gregory of Nyssa, how many thousands and tens of thousands of Christians were there that did their best to live according to the biblical principles we have just referred to, and never harmed anyone at all? Katz himself alludes to this in a footnote:

As Marcel Simon and others have correctly recognized, Chrysostom's virulent anti-Judaism was provoked, at least in part, by the fact that many Christians did not, as late as the fourth century, find Judaism offensive at all; thus this vituperation was required to make anti-Judaizers out of his Christians [p. 260].

I suspect there is more to this than meets the eye, and it is possible that a careful study of Chrysostom might reveal some other factors at work, but it is significant here that Katz recognizes that as late as the fourth century anti-Judaism was not an integral aspect of Christianity - but surely it would have been so, if these things were taught in the New Testament? I wonder how Chrysostom would have responded if someone had asked him why, if the synagogues were so evil, Paul regularly went there to share the good news, and some people believed him? As to Jews being "assassins of Christ," the same can and should be said of a medieval church that killed true Christians in the Inquisition and Counter-reformation. It can and should also be said of secular regimes in which many Christians have been killed and the church, the body of Jesus Christ, has been assaulted with violence. It is not only some Jewish religious leaders, an angry mob, and some Roman soldiers that are guilty of the blood of Christ. And, if Chrysostom did in fact say that there was no possible pardon for the assassination of Christ, he had either never read the book of Acts, or had read it but did not understand it, and was deeply estranged from the grace of God as revealed in Christ.

Moving on to Augustine, whose influence on Christian thought was vastly greater over the following centuries than that of Chrysostom or Gregory of Nyssa (whoever they were), Katz recognizes that "his views on Jews are more subtle than those of almost all his patristic contemporaries" [p. 259]. Augustine said that the Jews should not be harmed, that there was a purpose in their rejection of Christ and in their subsequent wanderings, and that in the end the Jews would be restored to grace. In connection with this, there is an intriguing footnote about one Robert Grosseteste, who, in spite of being "a rabid Jew hater," argued that Jews should not be killed [p. 262].

In spite of these and other mitigating factors, however, Katz still insists that the bible and the early Christian writers contributed a crucial element to the holocaust by making the Jew "unreal," by creating a process of "mythicization" that eliminated "the possibility of human relationships qua human relationships and made it impossible for gentiles to look on Jews as real people. This "tragic metamorphosis of 'the Jews' into something both other and metahistorical" [p. 264] is the "absolute precondition" [p. 263, italics in the original] for Hitler's antisemitism. He goes on to say:

The term absolute precondition has been chosen with great care. It indicates my belief that the Sho'ah would never have occurred had there been no classical Christian tradition of antisemitism. Alternatively, however, this tradition is not "the same as," "equivalent to," Nazi antisemitism, and readers must beware making this all-too-simple, too-available equation [p. 263].

Katz has thought long and deeply about this question and it is necessary to answer him with great seriousness. As was said before, it is largely a matter of presuppositions that go beyond the very limited reach of logic and are grounded in faith. These presuppositions are not contrary to reason and logic, but far transcend them, dealing with realities that are far above us, that we can at best understand partially. As Paul said, "For now we see through a glass, darkly." If the bible is not the true word of God, written by men divinely inspired to give us God's word as God wanted us to receive it, then Katz has a case - though even on merely human grounds it is open to criticism, since the modernistic rejection of Christianity that was fundamental to Naziism is easily demonstrated; since other countries with strong Protestant traditions were largely immune to the virus of antisemitism.

If however the bible is the divinely inspired word of God, as I believe it to be, then all of the statements about the Jews rejecting Christ are first of all true, and second of all apply to all men everywhere who reject the good news of God reconciling us to himself in Christ. Thirdly, there are many passages throughout the New Testament explaining how Christians are to conduct themselves, not to earn their salvation but out of love for God who has given them salvation, and if these teachings had been hearkened to and followed by the entire world, the entire world would have been at peace.

It is not when people believe in the bible and seriously try to live by its teachings that we have the conditions leading to the holocaust. It is when all of the restraints are cast off by men who feel they are too intelligent to need God; when Christianity and the bible are treated with hostility and contempt; when the virtues of kindness, mercy, forgiveness, and pity are viewed as vices and pitilessness and cruelty are exalted as virtues; when man is considered to have arisen from the animals and hence is fundamentally and essentially no more than an animal, an animal caught in a pitiless and merciless struggle for survival in which the strong survive and the weak die - when these and other mental perversions arise out of the freedom of man who relies only on his reason and logic, without divine revelation, then we have the "absolute preconditions for the holocaust." And let us not forget the blessings of science and progress (which by the way also gave us the atom bomb and pollution). If the Nazis had had no trains, and had had to ride around on horses massacring Jews locally, armed with primitive weapons, the Shoah would never have reached such darkly vast proportions. These are preconditions for the Holocaust, not the teachings of Jesus and the apostles. Naziism was a massive rebellion against biblical Christianity. If Christians openly supported Hitler, or kept silent when they should have helped, this was not because of biblical teachings. It was because of naivety, ignorance, ordinary human fear, or because of openly unbiblical teachings spread by an openly unbiblical church. During the Stalinist terror, many people kept quiet and said nothing when their colleagues and neighbors and friends and even their family members were taken away (not to mention total strangers who meant nothing to them). Was this because centuries of Christianity had taught them to value survival above anything else? Or is the failure to intervene sacrificially on behalf of others attributable not to the teachings of the bible but to human nature?

Unfortunately, the mistaken and unbiblical support of Hitler by Christians has not been sufficiently addressed in this section. More will be said about that when discussing Martin Niemoller, the Lutheran pastor who supported Hitler but later was imprisoned by the Nazis for his failure to cooperate. For now, it should suffice to say that his errors, whatever they may have been, were by no means inherent in New Testament teachings. The Christian message is or should be God's forgiveness in Christ, that Christians are to offer to all, Jew or gentile - for we have all sinned, and there is none righteous.

Martin Luther

I had originally intended to discuss Martin Luther in a section dealing with German history. Since, however, I have made the point that Naziism was a uniquely modern rather than a Christian manifestation of the sin and evil that have manifested themselves in many different ways since Cain killed Abel, perhaps it is better to deal with Luther here. Then it will be possible to conclude this section on Christianity and look more closely at the Jews, and their purpose in history according to scripture, both prior to and after the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ.

Jews were cruelly treated in none of the Protestant countries prior to the modern era, and the worst instances of "Christian" persecution of Jews have nothing to do with the Protestant Reformation. These worst instances are all associated with countries in which Catholicism or Greek Orthodoxy were the dominant forms of Christianity. This is not to say that all Protestants are good guys, and all Catholic or Orthodox are anti-Semites. Certainly many Protestants have failed to live up to the elementary standards of Christianity, and we can say with equal certainty that many Catholics and Greek Orthodox have lived quiet lives, harming no one. Nevertheless, it remains a fact that the Protestant countries (again, before the modern era and the great turning away from Christianity) have been singularly free of the worst abuses that lead so many to conclude that Christianity must be inherently anti-Semitic.

In spite of this obvious and undeniable historical fact that is consistently overlooked in all discussions of the Holocaust that I have seen, and in spite of the fact that nowhere were the Jews more assisted than in countries with a strong Protestant tradition like Holland and Denmark, Luther's name is often mentioned in any attempt to explain the roots of the Holocaust, and his attacks on the Jews are constantly used as proof of the assertion that Christianity contributed greatly to the Holocaust. However, things are not always what they seem, and there are some things about Luther which need to be clarified before his place in the problem of "Christian" and Nazi antisemitism can be rightly understood.

My own understanding is that Luther was a great man of God, who was mightily used by the Holy Spirit to deliver the European church from bondage to medieval Catholicism. He was a burning and a shining light that focused the clear rays of biblical truth on the darkness of superstition that enveloped Europe - and naturally the Roman church sought to kill him. If Luther had not been protected by sympathetic authorities but had been handed over to Rome, he would certainly have been murdered, like his great predecessor John Hus and other saints of God. Just as the Pharisees killed Christ, so in exactly the same spirit the Roman church killed countless saints, members of the body of Christ. As Jesus said, "Inasmuch as you have done it unto the least of one of these my brethren, you have done it unto me." The Jewish rejection of Christ is a human problem, not a "Jewish" one.

Not long after I became a Christian I read a number of Luther's well-known Reformation works, and was deeply affected by the clarity of his insight, the depth of his faith, and the power of his writing. I still feel a certain affinity for Luther, though I confess I haven't read his writings for years. I have given up theology almost completely, and want to concentrate on the bible.

This does not mean of course that I have to agree with everything that Luther wrote. I believe he was mistaken on the questions of infant baptism and church polity, and in some of his specific statements. But, I think he has been greatly misrepresented. The most severe criticisms that have been made against him concern his antisemitism. It is true that a few comments made later in life have been a great embarrassment to the church, and have given great occasion to unbelievers to point their fingers and say "Aha!", but I never noticed a speck of antisemitism in his most important Reformation works.  The Jews were not an issue for him in the great battles of the Reformation, and his main work, for which he is most remembered, has nothing to do with the Jews at all. The Jews were completely superfluous to his central goals of preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ and of removing the medieval accretions, superstitions, abuses, and papal heresies that had become institutionalized in the false church of Rome. This is why all of the critics of Luther's antisemitic views point only to a couple of tracts written very close to the end of his life.

I equate Luther's antisemitic tracts with David's sin in the matter of Uriah and Bathsehba. What David did was indefensible and wrong. This is why God speaking through Nathan the prophet said to him: "Why have you despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in his sight? You have killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and have taken his wife to be your wife, and have killed him with the sword of the children of Ammon." And David said, "I have sinned against the Lord." He did not say "But her husband had divorced her prior to going to war so she could remarry if he was killed, so it really wasn't so bad," as some foolish people have mistakenly tried to argue because they are unable to understand that a great man of God can also sin and err.

What David did was indefensible and wrong, but it does not detract from the great good that he did in his life as a whole. It is recognized that he was a man of God and his one sin was not characteristic of his whole life and work. Similarly, though Luther's writings are not on the same level as David's, his sin in getting angry at the Jews should not detract from all of the great good that he did do.

As to the tracts themselves, "On the Jews and Their Lies," and "Von Shem Hamphoras," I have seen a number of references to Luther's poor health in the last years of his life. I have not researched his medical problems, but it is obvious that someone who is afflicted by serious illnesses over a long enough period of time can undergo a significant inner change. I prefer to think that Luther's unchristian bitterness and anger in the last years of his life were to a great extent the result of poor health (not a momentary bad mood, but a significant personality change resulting from years of illness). Prolonged disappointment at the outcome of the Reformation might also have been a factor, as well as some negative experiences he had with Jews, of which more in a moment.

Luther's major Reformation works - The 95 Theses, Bondage of the Will, The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, Address to the German Nobility and others - have nothing to do with the Jews. At no time did Luther advocate exterminating the Jews, and even at the height of his influence there are no crimes that have been attributed to his name. If it had not been for a couple of treatises which he wrote late in life, possibly under the influence of poor health which clouded his judgement, he would never have been so often and so unfairly linked with Hitler.

Moreover, his attacks on the Jews were not echoed by any other Reformation leader, nor were they enthusiastically received in his day. One will search in vain for virulent anti-Semitism in the works of such major Protestant writers as Wesley, Whitefield, Bunyan, Jonathan Edwards, Knox, Melanchthon, Calvin, Spurgeon, and others. I do not consider general theological statements such as "The Jews have rejected Christ and are lost and in darkness" or "God has expelled the Jews from the land of Israel and scattered them abroad in his anger" to be antisemitic. They are legitimate theological statements - and if a Jew or a Moslem says "Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead and the Protestants are deceived by a false religion," this is a statement of belief, not an "attack."

Have some Jews have become so hypersensitive that every criticism is now viewed as being in some way connected with the holocaust? It is much too easy to read backward from the Holocaust, jumping over almost 400 years of cultural development as if Germany went straight from Luther to Hitler. One reason for this is that many prefer to avoid the secular influences of Hitler's thought. It is much easier to point at Luther and use this as an excuse to avoid influences on Hitler that are much closer to our own day. It is insufficiently remarked upon that Protestantism contributed to the mild and beneficent treatment that Jews received in all Protestant countries without exception in the centuries preceding the First World War. Holland, Scotland, Sweden, Denmark, England, Norway, Finland, the USA, and even Germany before 1914 - where were the pogroms and the ghettoes and the mass murders? Of course, if Jews are allowed to live in peace and enjoy themselves with few or no restrictions, but someone writes a book saying that the Gentiles have inherited the blessings of Abraham through faith and the Jews are alienated by unbelief until the time God restores them again, this is evidence of the baleful influence of Luther and of Protestant "hate."

Here a very important correction has to made about misunderstandings concerning Luther's importance and influence. When it comes to the basic teaching that the bible is the true word of God and as such is our guide; that we do not need the distortions of Catholicism to find salvation; that we are saved by faith alone ("faith" being much more than mere intellectual acceptance of key doctrines) - in these and related teachings Luther was profoundly, deeply influential, and countless people were blessed by these wonderful Gospel truths. But in other areas such as infant baptism or church polity or forms of worship, the meaning of communion, predestination, here Luther was much less influential.

It was clear from the outset of the reformation that Luther was no "pope" - people felt free to pick and choose from his writings and they did so. In some areas he was very influential, in other areas less so, and in his attacks on the Jews (which are a tiny portion of his total life's work) he was not influential at all. In not a single Protestant country before the modern era were any of his extreme  policies carried out, or even advocated by any respected leaders of the church.

Later I hope to examine the secular origins of modern antisemitism. Others have done this much more thoroughly than I could ever do, but not from a Christian viewpoint. Racial theories derived from 19th century science had nothing to do with the bible, and those who ascribe too much influence to Luther are mistaken. A much more relevant source was Nietzsche, who not only showed extreme hostility toward Jews (saying in his tract The Antichrist: A Curse on Christianity that Jews smelled bad, among other things, and blaming them for the decline of western civilization), but who also was deeply admired by Hitler in a way that Luther never was or could have been. Here is a revealing passage from William L. Shirer's The Rise and fall of the Third Reich [http://econ161.berkeley.edu/TCEH/Nietzsche.html]:

Nietzsche, like Goethe, held no high opinion of the German people, and in other ways, too, the outpourings of this megalomaniacal genius differ from those of the chauvinistic German thinkers of the nineteenth century.... The Germans, he wrote in Ecce Homo, "have no conception how vile they are," and he came to the conclusion that "wheresoever Germany penetrated, she ruins culture." He thought that Christians, as much as Jews, were responsible for the "slave morality" prevalent in the world. He was never an anti-semite. He was sometimes fearful of Prussian culture, and in his last years, before insanity closed his mind, he even toyed with the idea of European union and world government. Yet I think no one who lived in the Third Reich could have failed to be impressed by Nietzsche's influence on it. His books might be full, as Santayana said, of "genial imbecility" and "boyish blasphemies." Yet Nazi scribblers never tired of extolling him. Hitler often visited the Nietzsche museum in Weimar and publicized his veneration for the philosopher by posing for photographs of himself staring in rapture at the bust of the great man. There was some ground for this appropriation of Nietzsche as one of the originators of the Nazi Weltanschauung. Had not the philosopher thundered against democracy and parliaments, preached the will to power, praised war and proclaimed the coming of the master race and the superman--and in the most telling aphorisms? A Nazi could proudly quote him on almost every conceivable subject, and did. On Christianity: "the one great curse, the one enormous and innermost perversion... I call it the one immortal blemish of mankind.... This Christianity is no more than the typical teaching of the Socialists." On the State, power, and the jungle world of man: "Society has never regarded virtue as anything other than as a means to strength, power, and order. The State [is] unmorality organized... the will to war, to conquest and revenge...Society is not entitled to exist for its own sake but only as a substructure and scaffolding by means of which a select race of beings may elevate themselves to their higher duties... There is no such thing as the right to live, the right to work, or the right to be happy: in this respect man is no different from the meanest worm." (Women, whom Nietzsche never had, he consigned to a distinctly inferior status, as did the Nazis, who decreed that their place was in the kitchen and their chief role in life to beget children for German warriors. Nietzsche put the idea this way: "Man shall be trained for war and woman for the procreation of the warrior. All else is folly." He went further. In Thus Spake Zarathustra he exclaims: "Thou goest to woman? Do not forget thy whip!"...) And he exalted the superman as the beast of prey, "the magnificent blond brute, avidly rampant for spoil and victory." And war? Here Nietzsche took the view of most of the other nineteenth-century German thinkers. In the thundering Old Testament language in which Thus Spake Zarathustra is written, the philosopher cries out: "Ye shall love peace as a means to new war, and the short peace more than the long. You I advise not to work, but to fight. You I advise not to peace but to victory.... Ye say it is the good cause which halloweth even war? I say unto you: it is the good war which halloweth every cause. War and courage have done more great things than charity."           Finally there was Nietzsche's prophecy of the coming elite who would rule the world and from whom the superman would spring. In The Will to Power he exclaims: "A daring and ruler race is building itself up....The aim should be to prepare a transvaluation of values for a particularly strong kind of man, most highly gifted in intellect and will. This man and the elite around him will become the 'lords of the earth'."           Such rantings from one of Germany's most original minds must have struck a responsive chord in Hitler's littered mind. At any rate he appropriated them for his own--not only the thoughts but the philosopher's penchant for grotesque exaggeration, and often his very words. "Lords of the Earth" is a familiar expression in Mein Kampf. That in the end Hitler considered himself the superman of Nietzsche's prophecy cannot be doubted.... In Hitler's utterances there runs the theme that the supreme leader is above the morals of ordinary men. Hegel and Nietzsche thought so too.... Nietzsche, with his grotesque exaggeration, goes much further: The strong men, the masters, regain the pure conscience of a beast of prey; monsters filled with joy, they can return from a fearful succession of murder, arson, rape, and torture with the same joy in their hearts, the same contentment in their souls as if they had indulged in some student's rag.... When a man is capable of commanding, when he is by nature a "Master," when he is violent in act and gesture, of what importance are treaties to him?... To judge morality properly, it must be replaced by two concepts borrowed from zoology: the taming of a beast and the breeding of a specific species.

Shirer's book does not show a great deal of philosophical sophistication - that would be too much to expect from a man who devoted so much of his life to journalism. I also realize that the exact meaning of Nietzsche's thought has been debated, and I do not use this passage as proof of anything other than the obvious and undeniable fact that Hitler and the Nazis deeply admired Nietzsche. Parenthetically, one reason Nietzsche despised the docile and complacent Wilhelmine Germans was because of their submission to the Christian slave morality, which he saw as an invention of the tricky and devious Jews - he explains this in The Antichrist carefully and in detail.

Nietzsche had much more to do with the problem of the origins of the Holocaust than Luther did, but some people are reluctant to face this because they like Nietzsche's atheism and/or some of his philosophical ideas, and so are determined to exonerate him no matter what; while they dislike Luther's message and are happy to blame him no matter what. Luther's angry attacks were extraneous to his main purpose. Nietzsche's antisemitic comments in The Antichrist are central to his purpose - but more of that later.

Let us return to the tract On the Jews and Their Lies. Luther has never been quoted accurately to my knowledge. There is a passage from this tract which has been cited countless times, always linking him to the holocaust. He is quoted as saying that the Jews should be forced to do manual labor, that their synagogues should be burned, that their books should be taken away, and other things. However, there is another passage which follows not long after which I have never seen quoted. I cite it here [http://www.humanitas-international.org/showcase/chronography/documents/luther-jews.htm - The treatise is not paginated on the website. This passage comes from Part 12. All quotes from the treatise come from the same website]. But what will happen even if we do burn down the Jews' synagogues and forbid them publicly to praise God, to pray, to teach, to utter God's name? They will still keep doing it in secret. If we know that they are doing this in secret, it is the same as if they were doing it publicly. For our knowledge of their secret doings and our toleration of them implies that they are not secret after all, and thus our conscience is encumbered with it before God. So let us beware. In my opinion the problem must be resolved thus: If we wish to wash our hands of the Jews' blasphemy and not share in their guilt, we have to part company with them. They must be driven from our country. Let them think of their fatherland; then they need no longer wail and lie before God against us that we are holding them captive, nor need we then any longer complain that they are burdening us with their blasphemy and their usury. This is the most natural and the best course of action, which will safe guard the interest of both parties.

This was his main point, and it would have been well if he had stopped there. But writing in excessive and unchristian bitterness he reverted to earlier statements, and continued as follows:

I wish and I ask that our rulers who have Jewish subjects exercise a sharp mercy toward these wretched people, as suggested above, to see whether this might not help (though it is doubtful). They must act like a good physician who, when gangrene has set proceeds without mercy to cut, saw, and burn flesh, veins, bone, and marrow. Such a procedure must also be followed in this instance. Burn down their synagogues, forbid all that I enumerated earlier, force them to work, and deal harshly with them, as Moses did in the wilderness, slaying three thousand lest the whole people perish. They surely do not know what they are doing; moreover, as people possessed, they do not wish to know it, hear it, or learn it. Therefore it would be wrong to be merciful and confirm them in their conduct. If this does not help we must drive them out like mad dogs, so that we do not become partakers of their abominable blasphemy and all their other vices and thus merit God's wrath and be damned with them. I have done my duty. Now let everyone see to his. I am exonerated.

Here once again, in spite of the excessive hostility, the end was expulsion. This was unnecessary, wrong, but it would have prevented the Holocaust, unless the Jews had returned later of course. And, was Luther the first Zionist, saying that the Jews did not belong in Europe and they should go back to their homeland? What if the Jews really did not belong in Germany to begin with? Isn't that what Herzl said, that Europe was not the real home of the Jews? Incidentally, when Luther spoke of Jews being slain in the wilderness, he forgot that God was present there in an unusual way, so much so that there were a number of manifestations of divine anger on the Jews which ordinary people, and certainly not Christians, should not think of emulating. It does not detract in the least from the greatness of Luther's earlier achievements to say that he was wrong sometimes, and he was wrong here.

The purpose in all of this is not to defend misguided words. Christians should welcome the unbelievers in their midst and try to show them the love of God, but Luther was not as bad as many have claimed. It is inaccurate to say that he was a coarse, vulgar, brutal, raving antisemite. Here is another passage from the same tract, which to my knowledge has never been quoted. Speaking of the Jews, Luther said:

God truly honored them highly by circumcision, speaking to them above all other nations on earth and entrusting his word to them. And in order to preserve this word among them, he gave them a special country; he performed great wonders through them, ordained kings and government, and lavished prophets upon them who not only apprised them of the best things pertaining to the present but also promised them the future Messiah, the Savior of the world. It was for his sake that God accorded them all of this, bidding them look for his coming, to expect him confidently and without delay. For God did all of this solely for his sake: for his sake Abraham was called, circumcision was instituted, and the people were thus exalted so that all the world might know from which people, from which country, at which time, yes, from which tribe, family, city, and person, he would come, lest he be reproached by devils and by men for coming from dark corner or from unknown ancestors.

Luther's problem with the Jews had nothing to do with Hitler's racial pseudo-science; it was of a wholly different order. His angry statements were useful to the Nazis, and they used them effectively, but anyone who wants to understand Hitler will not learn much from reading Luther. Try to imagine Hitler reading the passage just cited.

There are some other passages from the tract "On the Jews and Their Lies" which are useful for those few who really want to understand Luther.

Three learned Jews came to me, hoping to discover a new Jew in me because we were beginning to read Hebrew here in Wittenberg, and remarking that matters would soon improve since we Christians were starting to read their books. When I debated with them, they gave me their glosses, as they usually do. But when I forced them back to the text, they soon fled from it, saying that they were obliged to believe their rabbis as we do the pope and the doctors, etc. I took pity on them and give them a letter of recommendation to the authorities, asking that for Christ's sake they let them freely go their way. But later, I found out that they called Christ a tola, that is, a hanged highwayman. Therefore I do not wish to have anything more to do with any Jew. As St. Paul says, they are consigned to wrath; the more one tries to help them the baser and more stubborn they become. Leave them to their own devices.

Here we see Luther behaving decently toward Jews, as he did all of his life, never harming anyone and only writing a couple of angry tracts at the end of his life that were of no great influence and widely ignored until the Nazis found them useful for their own base purposes. Katz, who has plenty of bad things to say about Luther, cites a passage where Luther says:

...that they be on their guard against the Jews and avoid them as far as possible. They should not curse them or harm their persons, however. For the Jews have cursed and harmed themselves more than enough by cursing the Man Jesus of Nazareth, Mary's son, which they unfortunately have been doing for over fourteen hundred years. Let the government deal with them in this respect, as I have suggested [p.390].

Exactly what "in this respect" might mean is not clear, since according to the footnote it comes from the same volume as "On the Jews and Their Lies," but with  hundreds of pages intervening. He cites another passage in which Luther said that money gained by the Jews from usury should be taken from them and used to maintain "converted Jews and the old and the sick among them" [p. 391]. Another passage is cited in which Luther says: "We must indeed with prayer and the fear of God before our eyes, exercise a sharp compassion towards them and seek to save some of them from the flames [of Hell]. Avenge ourselves we dare not" [p. 391].

This is an excellent example of the restraint inherent in Christianity which existed even in the earlier Middle Ages, and is thoroughly documented by Katz. But, many are happy to be able to find some fault with Luther, any fault, because then it is easier for them to disregard his basic message - that we are guilty of sin, and headed for eternal punishment, unless we avail ourselves of the salvation offered to us by God in Christ.

Another mitigating factor in Luther's anger at the Jews is that it was not directed at the Jews only. Luther saw the same power of sin that led the Jews to reject Christ as also being operative in the Turks and the Papists - I cite the following passage from "On the Jews and Their Lies":

If I had not had the experience with my papists, it would have seemed incredible to me that the earth should harbor such base people who knowingly fly in the face of open and manifest truth, that is, of God himself. For I never expected to encounter such hardened minds in any human breast, but only in that of the devil. However, I am no longer amazed by either the Turks' or the Jews' blindness, obduracy, and malice, since I have to witness the same thing in the most holy fathers of the church, in pope, cardinals, and bishops.

Thus, the sin of the Jews in rejecting Christ is the sin of the human race due to the fall, and biblically Luther is on solid ground here. By the way, in referring to the "malice" of the Jews, Luther is referring to the references of some (not all) Jews to Mary as a whore and Jesus as a wicked and evil man (among other things). This is nothing but malice, although it should not call for anger. Jesus was told that he had a devil and responded calmly and reasonably. As it says in the New Testament, "The servant of God must not strive, but must be gentle to all."

Other parts of the tract are not raving at all but contain basic bible teachings: that some Jews brag and boast of their descent from Abraham, their ceremonies, their circumcision, but do not consider that their expulsion from the land is proof of God's disfavor; that mere observance of outward laws or of ceremonies is no guarantee of God's favor; that the Jews many times rejected God and were criticized by their own prophets for their wickedness; that they were expelled from the land of Israel and sent into centuries of exile because of their wickedness - these are not the extreme utterances of a coarse and brutal man, but biblical truth. Unfortunately, the truth can be presented in an uncharitable way not designed to benefit the hearer.

Luther, like David and Solomon, though on a lower plane, was a flawed man of God. Even Moses got angry at the Jews because of their stubbornness and unbelief and struck the rock when he should have spoken to it. Luther struck when he should have spoken and reasoned, but still he was a much more sophisticated man than many make him out to be. He lectured on Aristotle on the university level, and was much more thoroughly grounded in the philosophy of his day than most or all of his current detractors. He also knew Greek, Latin, and Hebrew, and more importantly had a spiritual depth and power, combined with a simplicity of Christ, that place him far above many who dismiss him with contempt.

As an example of unfair criticisms, it has been said that he made excessive scatological references. Paul also referred to dung in Philippians -"I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ" - as did the prophet Zephania - "their blood shall be poured out as dust, and their flesh as the dung." There are other references to this unpleasant aspect of reality in the bible - David makes a "scatological reference: "they became as dung for the earth." Christ also made reference to a dunghill: "It is neither fit for the land, nor yet for the dunghill."

I read a number of Luther's most important works and saw no references of any kind that I thought were excessive or unseemly. Some of these people by the way who pretend to be so dainty and fastidious when it comes to Luther routinely accept other things that would have scandalized people in the 16th century - especially in movies, TV shows, magazine ads, the attire of women, and modern sexual behaviour in general.

As to Luther's "vitriol," all of the comments of his that I read in his major reformation works (I did not read all of them) were not "vitriolic" at all but to my mind sound, appropriate, and well deserved. They may seem excessive to people who are eager to criticize Luther, or who have no deep religious convictions of their own and feel that the most important thing is just to get along with everyone, but I think Luther's attacks on the church of Rome were words of wisdom and truth for the edification of the church. But, modern Christianity is now so shallow, weak, passive, and dull, that Luther's deep love of truth seems "harsh." Luther was not too harsh as a rule - it is the moderns who are too lacking in conviction. Witness the evangelical Christian magazine that recently printed an editorial condemning homosexual marriages but in the whole editorial did not once use the words "God" "Jesus" "love" "bible" "holiness" "righteousness" "sin" "judgement" "wrath" "forgiveness" "repentance" "heaven" or "hell." They were so careful to avoid giving offense, so fearful of being dismissed as fanatics - but Luther was not so spineless, and by God's grace he spoke powerful words of truth.

As to some other details, such as Cranach's offensive woodcuts which Luther apparently commissioned, I do not know to what extent Luther determined the exact content, or how satisfied he was with the result. Two or three Reformation woodcuts that I saw looked pretty good - for example the one contrasting the crown of thorns worn by Christ with the triple crown worn by the "pope." It is more than a little curious that some who are so disapproving of a vulgar cartoon by Cranach are not so offended by the burning of John Hus at the stake because he refused to bow down to the "pope." Nor are they so shocked by Nietzsche's belief that the Overman is above such trivial and petty concepts of right and wrong and is justified in trampling pitilessly over corpses to reach his goal. But the goal of discrediting Luther takes precedence.

The Hep riots

In 1819 a series of riots called the Hep riots broke out against the Jews in Germany. They have been used as an example of the anti-Jewish sentiment that prevailed in Germany even before the modern era, and seem to refute my contention that antisemitism was never a serious problem in the Protestant countries before the modern era. A closer examination of these riots, far from refuting my contention, serves rather to confirm it.

According to information from the Encyclopedia Judaica provided by the Simon Wiesenthal Center's Online Multimedia Learning Center (http://motlc.learningcenter.wiesenthal.org/text/x10/xm1003.html), not only did the riots consist of looting and breaking windows with no loss of life mentioned; not only did they last for a very short time (a couple of months); but most importantly, the anti-Jewish rioters were suppressed by troops and by the police. Here we have government fulfilling its biblical role - using its armed might to keep the peace and protect innocent people. And, according to the same source, there were no riots in Protestant Prussia (except for Danzig) and few in Catholic Austria.

What factors caused the complete reversal that occurred in the ensuing century? Significantly, the Encyclopedia Judaica attributes these riots not to the seminaries or the churches or the Christians - and it requires no documentation to assert that the church was vastly more influential in 1819 than it was 100 years later. No, the references concerning causality are not to the Lutherans or the Catholics, but rather to the academic circles (long since influenced by the anti-Christian "Enlightenment"), and to the beerhouses and the nationalistic Burschenschaften, Romantic writers, and liberal nationalist politicians.

The point will be made later that nationalism is not a biblical teaching, and has nothing to do with Luther or the New Testament. Romanticism was thoroughly pagan - which of the Romantic writers were devout bible believing Christians? What does Schiller's nonsensical "Ode to Joy" have to do with the bible? Goethe laughed at Christianity. Even then, while some secularists advocated tolerance to be sure, other less benign manifestations of secularism were on the cutting edge of anti-Jewish sentiment, as they are today; for who, apart from the Moslems, are the bitterest enemies of political Israel today? It is not the conservative Protestant Christians, many of whom respect Luther and still read some of his works - it is the secular left. But in 1819 the conservative Christian tradition had not been gutted and desiccated by decades of theological heresies, leaving a largely empty shell to be swept away by the storms of war and economic chaos that shook Germany to its foundations in the twentieth century. People back then were not so disoriented, so desperate for certainty, so ripe for deception and manipulation. They had higher standards of truth and more respect for the bible than the degenerate moderns. A massive shift took place in the century between 1819 and 1919. This was not only political, but also philosophical, moral, and spiritual. The political changes (including economic and military) are readily apparent. The others are invisible, but still susceptible to study and analysis. In the third part of this essay I will try to examine them, however imperfectly.

Conclusion

Hopefully a more detailed examination of Hitler's life and times will serve to further delineate the boundaries of the dark and vast gulf that separates his teachings from those of the Lord Christ Jesus. Before that, however, it is necessary to examine also the Jews. For the present, it is appropriate to close this first part with a passage about the day of judgement from the last book of the New Testament. John wrote:

I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.    And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.    And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to his works.    And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.    And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.    And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.    And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.    And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.    And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.    And he said unto me, it is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.    He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.    But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part which burns with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

TOP OF PAGE CONTINUE BACK TO OUTLINE

Home000I000Outline000I000Introduction000I000Scriptural Christianity000I000The Jews000I000Hitler, Germany and the Holocaust000I000Conclusion